Tag: APWH

The Ghost Dance Movement(s)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To)

Three Big Things:

Ghost Dance Green1. The tribes of the Great Plains faced confinement or extermination as the 19th century drew to a close; they were desperate and confused in the face of ongoing U.S. expansion, aggression, and manipulation.

2. The “Ghost Dance” promised to bring back their former way of life, to raise their dead, and to bring peace and prosperity to all who believed.

3. Variations in tribal interpretations of “Ghost Dance” teachings and white fears of Amerindian uprisings led to unnecessary death and violence, most notably at Wounded Knee in 1890 – the effective end of Native resistance on the Great Plains. 

Background

The end of the American Civil War allowed the U.S. to turn its military focus to the Great Plains. The Homestead Act (1862) codified and intensified the westward expansion which had been a defining feature of the United States since its political birth a century before. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 had largely cleared the southeastern portion of the continent of its Native American inhabitants, most famously the Five Civilized Tribes, who were forcibly settled in Indian Territory (I.T.), along with a number of lesser-known tribes, where they did their best to rebuild what lives they could in this strange new land.

When the Civil War broke out, the Five Civilized Tribes largely supported the Confederacy – some wholeheartedly, others in part. Upon Union victory, Congress – controlled by the same Radical Republicans who would try so intently to “reconstruct” the South – punished the inhabitants of I.T. by drastically reducing their land allotments. The Five Tribes were confined to what is today the eastern half of Oklahoma, thus opening the western half to a new round of forced migration. This time it would be the tribes of the Great Plains – roughly the middle third of the U.S. – who would be hunted, cajoled, or otherwise forced onto this ever-shrinking reservation.

The Post-Bellum Indian Wars

The U.S. used a variety of tactics against the Plains Tribes in the decades after the Civil War. A favorite of George A. Custer was the early morning winter attack. Soldiers would surprise a village of “hostiles,” bundled with their women and children against the cold, and open fire just before dawn. Startled warriors were caught without their horses, weapons, or even clothing, and were generally slaughtered with relative ease. 

A second strategy was less direct but arguably even more effective. Buffalo were essential to cultures and basic survival of most Plains Amerindians. Food, clothing, tools, storage, and rituals all involved parts of this ubiquitous beast. The U.S. began encouraging large-scale hunting of these creatures, on horseback or – no joke – by railroad. Excited urbanites paid good money for the chance to lean out of train windows firing rifles into the herds. The carcasses were often left in the sun to rot.

Then, of course, there were the actual battles between U.S. soldiers and various Plains tribal groups. There were a few Amerindian victories – most notably the Battle of Little Bighorn (aka, “Custer’s Last Stand”) in 1876, but by and large the Native Americans adapted poorly to the sort of hierarchical structure and sustained discipline essential for U.S.-style military engagement. While brave and creative warriors, they carried a deeply-rooted sense of individuality and a distaste for telling other men what they could or could not do. However much this stirred the romantic notions of distant whites, it completely undermined efforts to coordinate large-scale resistance.

In short, the U.S. had them out-numbered, out-gunned, out-financed, and out-structured. By the late 19th century, few Amerindians of any tribe could claim much hope for their collective futures.

The First Ghost Dance: Wodzibob 

Around 1870, a Paiute holy man by the name of Wodzibob began sharing a vision he’d had in which God had taken him up to heaven and informed him that a time of resurrection was soon coming. The dead would be resurrected and the buffalo would return. The people could help speed this by performing a series of rituals, most notably an extended dance involving the entire community, women as well as men, moving rhythmically in a large circle. 

“Round dances” were not new to the Plains Amerindians; most tribes had their own variations. Dancers sometimes entered trance-like states leading to visions or prophesies, so while Wodzibob’s message was new, the format and source were familiar. It was left to the individual to decide the extent to which someone else’s revelation applied to them. As an established healer and respected member of the tribe, Wodzibob’s teachings spread quickly and endured for several years, until it gradually became clear his predictions were not coming to pass in the promised time frame. 

WovokaThe Second Ghost Dance: Wovoka

By the late 1880s, the majority of the tribes native to the continental United States had been defeated – by warfare, by disease, by the loss of land, and – in the case of the Great Plains – the disappearance of the buffalo. Many were forced onto reservations or packed into Indian Territory where they were expected to farm and practice “white” lifestyles on unwilling land, without essential tools or adequate supplies, and minus the requisite desire. The provisions “guaranteed” by the U.S. government either never arrived or were of such poor quality as to prove useless. The proud nations of the Great Plains were broken and bewildered, and quite possibly nearing extinction.  

In January 1889, an emerging Paiute spiritual leader named Wovoka (aka “Jack Wilson”) claimed to have experienced a vision reminiscent of Wodzibob’s two decades before. Wodzibob’s teachings and experiences would have been familiar to Wovoka, both as recent tribal history and because his father had been a close associate of the revered shaman, so it’s probably no surprise the basic message was the same:  those who’d been lost would soon return, as would their way of life, so have faith and dance.

Wovoka’s message, however, reflected additional influences, particularly his exposure to Christianity. Wovoka taught that the people should love one another, avoid stealing or lying or even fighting the whites, and do their best to live in peace even with those who had abused them. Tribal rituals involving self-mutilation were condemned, although by some accounts Wovoka punctured his hands – a “self-inflicted stigmata” to reflect his role as either the prophet of the returning Christ, or perhaps some form of the Messiah himself.

There was also a bit where God put Wovoka in charge of the weather, at least in the western half of the United States. That’s the tricky thing about visions and faith and conflicting primary sources – they make history so much more interesting but also so… messy.

The Wounded Knee Massacre

Ghost Dance SiouxAs tends to happen with ideas as they spread, Wovoka’s message quickly evolved as it was taken up by different tribes. With the Lakota Sioux in particular, it took on a more militant tone. Their concept of renewal – of heaven on earth – was incompatible with the presence of white folks, despite Wovoka’s calls for racial unity. It was also most likely a Lakota who added the idea of a “ghost shirt,” which would render its wearer impervious to bullets (since, presumably, you can’t shoot ghosts). It was exposure to the Sioux version of Wovoka’s visions which most led to white characterizations of the dance at the heart of the movement as a “Ghost Dance” with militant overtones. 

As U.S. concern over a possible Sioux uprising simmered, they more and more saw the dance as inherently hostile, or even preparatory for war. It was this fear that led to the arrest and subsequent death of Sitting Bull in 1890, a few weeks before Christmas. U.S. military officials next targeted a Lakota chief by the name of Big Foot. Most of his followers were women and children whose men had been killed resisting U.S. aggression. As those who’d lost the most, they were often the most devout adherents of the dance, pushing themselves until they collapsed or became otherwise incoherent.

Wounded Knee MapBig Foot had led his group to the Pine Ridge Reservation to surrender. They were told to set up camp while officials figured out what to do with them next. The next day, December 29th, 1890, soldiers were sent into the camp to gather any remaining weapons among the Sioux. It’s unclear to what extent the Lakota resisted. Some accounts refer to a medicine man encouraging them to don their “ghost shirts” and fight, while others focus on a single young Sioux, probably deaf, who attempted to retain his rifle. Whatever the specifics, at some point a shot was fired and things pretty much went to hell from there.

Soldiers opened fire on the camp while panicked Sioux tried to grab what weapons they could to fight back. When the shooting stopped, 153 Lakota and at least 25 soldiers were dead. Most of the U.S. deaths appeared to be the result of “friendly fire,” which would be consistent with the sort of panic that comes after weeks of creeping paranoia.

Aftermath

Although periodic smaller conflicts would continue for a time, the Massacre at Wounded Knee marks the effective end of “Indian Resistance” on the Great Plains. Seemingly rubbing salt into the tragedy, the U.S. awarded twenty medals of honor to surviving soldiers for their actions.

As news of events at Wounded Knee spread, reactions were mixed. Some saw the military’s behavior as a gross overreaction – further abuse of a people clearly already defeated and pacified. Whatever the extent of the backlash, it did result in temporary efforts by the U.S. to more consistently honor its treaty obligations with survivors.

It would be nearly a century before American Indian groups began actively reclaiming their status and tribal identities.

Mass Grave Wounded Knee

The Second Boer War (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Second Boer War

Three Big Things:

1. The Boers were descendants of Dutch, Germans, and Huguenots who settled the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century. They were farmers and ranchers who believed they were among God’s most favored elect. 

2. There were two distinct wars between the Boers and the British – the Boers won the first using superior horsemanship and marksmanship. The British won the second by having way more soldiers than the Boers.

3. The Boer resorted to guerilla warfare; the British responded with “scorched earth” tactics and concentration camps for Boer women and children, where thousands died of hunger, disease, and neglect.

Background & The Great Trek

Cape Colonies

In 1652, the Cape of Good Hope was colonized by the Dutch, including a group of farmers referred to as “Boers.”  They were everything you’d expect from gritty, self-reliant farmers who shared a strong faith and traditional lifestyle. 

Great Britain eventually took control of the Cape. They were anti-slavery, anti-Calvinist, and anti-speaking Dutch. As a result, nearly 15,000 Boers moved northeastward as part of “The Great Trek.” As they’d migrated, the Boers, also called “Afrikaners,” enslaved or otherwise marginalized the rather sparse native (and black) African population and soon considered themselves very much the “real” citizens who deserved to be there, as opposed to the (British) interlopers who eventually followed and with whom they continued to clash.

The Boer Republics

By the 1850s, the Boer had established two independent republics in southeastern Africa – The Transvaal (aka “The South African Republic”) and the Orange Free State. These republics instituted apartheid – strict segregation and discrimination, enforced by law as well as social custom. For a decade or two, it seemed they might just be left alone.

In the late 1860s, however, diamonds were discovered in Transvaal. The resulting rush of Uitlanders – “outlanders” – soon outnumbered the locals and began demanding greater political participation and basic protections. Factions rose up and clashed, tensions increased, and eventually things erupted in the First Boer War (1880 – 1881). The British were caught off-guard by Boer marksmanship and tactics; the brief conflict became Great Britain’s first military defeat since 1783. Transvaal (aka “the South African Republic”) secured its independence, at least temporarily.

Tensions Renewed

In 1886, a substantial gold deposit was discovered in Transvaal. The Boer had by that time learned the role mineral wealth could play in maintaining their independence and took full advantage. By 1890, South Africa was the largest source of gold in the world. They became major players in the international monetary system and invested heavily in the neighboring Orange Free State and other Boer communities, throwing a rather expensive wrench into Great Britain’s longsuffering desire to eventually unify South Africa under British rule.

Rhodes ColossusNevertheless, with so much gold came more Uitlanders – ambitious individuals as well as foreign companies with the resources and know-how to manage difficult extraction. The Transvaal government made it difficult for newcomers to vote or otherwise fully participate in society, which didn’t bother those only interested in quick profits but antagonized the British to their ideological cores.

Conveniently for future history students, the complexities of Anglo-Boer relations coalesced at this point into two colorful personalities. Representing Transvaal was President Paul Kruger, a Boer nationalist whose street cred went all the way back to the Great Trek. Flying the Union Jack was Cecil Rhodes, Premier of the Cape Colony and founder of DeBeer Diamonds. You’ve probably seen that political cartoon of him standing spread-legged across Africa – claiming the continent for Queen, country, and white culture everywhere. He’s also why there’s a “Rhodes Scholarship,” which allows deserving youngsters of solid occidental backgrounds to attend his alma mater, Oxford University.

Rhodes recognized that if Transvaal’s prosperity was allowed to continue, they’d soon be in a position to push Great Britain out of South Africa entirely. He helped put together a plan to stir up an Uitlander revolt – a debacle which became known as the Jameson Raid, so titled because it was to be led by Dr. Leander Starr Jameson (a name only slightly less awesome than “Orange Free State”). The revolution was slated for late December, 1895.

Poor communications, disputes among Uitlander leaders, and the preference of many to celebrate the New Year instead of overthrowing “the man” sabotaged the plan from the outset. Rhodes and his co-conspirators tried to call off Jameson’s invasion, but the raiding party had somehow cut their own communications instead of Transvaal’s, so while the Boer were kept well-informed of what was happening, Jameson was not. His party was captured on January 2nd and sentenced to death, soon reduced to fines and severe embarrassment.

Paul KrugerThe Jameson Raid reinforced to the Boer the importance of sticking together – supporting one another while constraining the Uitlanders. Tensions continued to build for several more years and eventually the British resorted to a more traditional approach and began building up troops along the border. In October of 1899, President Paul Kruger issued an ultimatum demanding they withdraw.

They didn’t.

Transvaal and the Orange Free State declared war on the British. 

The Second Boer War, aka “The Anglo-Boer War” or “The South African War” (1899 – 1902)

For the first several months, things unfolded very much like they had in the first war, but on a larger scale. The Boer struck and retreated, blending into their surroundings. They used horses to maximum advantage and shot with what must have seemed impossible accuracy. They occupied key cities and drove back the British at almost every confrontation. Had they pressed their advantage aggressively, it’s possible they could have ended the war by Christmas.

But the Boer weren’t looking to destroy the British, or even to take back the Cape. They wanted to be left alone, and when given the opportunity to conduct total war, preferred to lay siege to entrenched towns or otherwise dial back the death and violence. Surely the British were learning their lesson, and perhaps this time it would stick.

The British had learned from their previous encounters – but not the lessons the Boer hoped. They remembered an embarrassing military loss followed by feeling disrespected and marginalized by a bunch of farmers with weird accents. This time Great Britain brought in reinforcements – lots of them. They made some strategic adjustments as well, but like the North in the American Civil War, they didn’t have to win every battle or rethink every maneuver if they could consistently outnumber and overwhelm their opposition.

Which they did.

Armed BoersBy the end of 1900, the British controlled most Boer territory and officially annexed both Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This should have been the end of hostilities, but many Boers still refused to surrender. Thus began a new phase of the war – two years of guerilla warfare and raids. The Afrikaners vandalized railroads, cut telegraph lines, and otherwise harassed British forces endlessly. They struck and then vanished, never allowing their opponents security or peace, but avoiding open conflict whenever possible. 

The Brits strung barbed wire, established military checkpoints, and otherwise struggled to contain the guerillas. When these proved unsuccessful, they initiated a “scorched earth” policy – burning fields, destroying towns, and killing livestock which could conceivably be used to support the rebels. They fortified their supply storehouses and put heavy armor on their trains. Boer civilians – women and children as well as men of all ages – were gathered into concentration camps, where thousands died of disease, starvation, and neglect.

It’s not entirely clear whether such brutality towards the wives and children of those fighting was part of a “total war” strategy or the tragic result of poor management and conflicting priorities. In might have been retaliation for the suffering endured by cities previously besieged by the Boers, or merely reflected the harsh realities of the times. Disease killed more fighting men than bullets, and even back in mother England, over a third of those volunteering for military service were rejected for various health-related issues.

Black Africans suspected of helping the Boers were placed in separate camps, where conditions were even worse – if such a thing were possible. Both Brits and Boers desired that this be a “white man’s war,” but separating such a thing from the people in and around it proved impossible. While some Africans found ways to profit from wartime conditions, many others lost jobs, homes, and lands as a result of the conflict.

Boer CampThe Anglo’s perceived brutality severely damaged their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world as well as provoking outrage and protests back home. The war became increasingly unpopular as it continued to drag on, prompting the British to offer increasingly generous terms to the guerillas. Those determined to fight to the bitter end became known as Bittereinders (I’m not even making that up), while those who accepted reconciliation were labeled Hensoppers – literally, “hands-uppers.”

If nothing else, the Boer wars gave us arguably the most fascinating vocabulary list in all of world history curriculum. 

Aftermath

By May of 1902, it was over. Citizens of both Transvaal and the Orange Free State voted to accept the terms of the most recent British peace offer, the Treaty of Vereeniging. The former republics were absorbed into the British Empire which promised them some degree of self-government – a promise they delivered by creating the Union of South Africa in 1910.

Bitterness remained between the Boers and their English-speaking neighbors, and racial divisions between both groups and Black Africans would get worse before they got better. Apartheid shaped much of the 20th century until its abolition in the 1990s, and the Afrikaners throughout have retained their own language and culture. There are today around 2.6 million Boers – over half the white population of South Africa. Some are still fighting for separate recognition.

The Boers & The First Boer War (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Boers & the First Boer War

Three Big Things:

Armed Boers

1. The Boers were white descendants of Dutch, German, and French Protestants who settled the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century. They were farmers and ranchers who believed they were among God’s most favored elect. 

2. There were two distinct wars between the Boers and the British – the Boers won the first using superior horsemanship and marksmanship combined with a willingness to run and hide.

3. Neither side thought much of native Africans, who were attacked, enslaved, or exploited as necessary to achieve Boer or British goals. This created some long-term racial tensions in Southern Africa. 

Background

In 1652, the Cape of Good Hope was colonized by the Dutch, largely as a coastal supply station for ships traveling from Europe to Asia. While the Age of Exploration had initially been dominated by the Portuguese and Spanish, by the late 16th century the British and Dutch had stepped up their imperialism games substantially. Even old New York (in the American colonies) was once New Amsterdam.

In short, the Dutch were a thing.

Settlers of what became known as the “Cape Colony” included a group of farmers known as “Boers” – the Dutch word for “farmer.” (Clearly the Dutch didn’t feel the need to get super-creative with monikers.) A majority were Dutch, but a substantial minority were Germans or Huguenots (French Protestants who emigrated to escape severe persecution by France’s Catholic majority). They were gritty and self-reliant and chosen by God – how many of us can claim that? 

The Sun Never Sets

Cape Colony

Great Britain first became an annoyance when they seized control of the Cape Colony in 1806. You may recall a feisty French fellow by the name of Napoleon who was trying to take over the world at the time. Holland had been seized by the French and was thus technically part of Napoleon’s empire, making Dutch colonies fair game in the eyes the British, who figured if anyone was going to run the entire world, it should probably be them. 

The British weren’t yet in full “imperialism” mode, but they did seem to keep trickling in. They seemed eager to share their political and cultural superiority with those less evolved – which was most people. They criticized the Boers for having slaves, a practice only recently abolished by Parliament. As they became a majority, their colonial government declared English the official language of the Cape, prohibiting the use of Dutch in legal transactions or public affairs. None of these proved effective ways to make friends.

Not that the Boers were particularly collegial themselves. Neither side was prone to compromise when it came to faith, government, or culture, and about the only thing they could agree on was that native black Africans were the worst. The British were simply no longer willing to openly enslave them, preferring less direct methods of control and exploitation in order to appease moral sentiments back home. The Boer, on the other hand, were home. For now.

Boer Trek: The Next Generation

A few Boers had already migrated north over the years, encouraged by a climate favorable for farming and raising livestock, as well as the relatively low rate of excruciating deaths by indigenous diseases. As the British began dominating the Cape Colony, this migration increased dramatically. Between 1835 and 1846, nearly 15,000 Boers moved northeastward as part of “The Great Trek,” primarily in covered wagons drawn by oxen.
As they’d migrated, the Boers enslaved or otherwise marginalized the rather sparse native (and black) African population and over time considered themselves very much the “real” citizens who deserved to be there, as opposed to the (British) interlopers who eventually followed and with whom they continued to clash. Their convictions were reinforced by their intense Calvinistic faith. The Boers saw themselves as a chosen people – as trekboeren (“diasporic farmers”). Like modern day Israelites, they kept to themselves and largely ignored or rejected the rapid changes sweeping Europe – the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution, for example – as beneath them.

I know, I know – wacky, right? But so goes history.

By this time, they had another name – “Afrikaners,” from “Afrikaans,” the primary language of the Boers – a derivative of Dutch shaped by various African languages and local inflections over the years. The term is often used interchangeably with “Boers” just to keep history as confusing as possible.

The Boer Republics

Cape LabeledBy the early 1850s, these voortrekkers, or “pathfinders” (yet another name for essentially the same folks), established two independent republics in southeastern Africa – The Transvaal (aka “The South African Republic”) and the Orange Free State (arguably the coolest name ever for a real place). There, the Boers continued their near-subsistence lifestyle with minimal actual government. The republics were initially recognized by the British, and soon instituted apartheid – strict segregation and discrimination, enforced by law as well as social custom. Apartheid would, of course, play a major role in South African history for the next 150 years, eventually earning international criticism before being reversed in the modern era. On a more positive note, it gave Bono and U2 something to talk about in the 1980s which the rest of us had actually heard of.

For a decade or two, it seemed the Boer Republics might just remain the lands that time, technology, and the rest of the world forgot. In the late 1860s, however, diamonds were discovered along the border between Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British-controlled Cape Colony. The Orange Free State agreed to relinquish their claims in exchange for compensation by the British, but the Transvaal insisted the region was fully theirs. And it probably was.

Still, anyone paying even minimal attention in high school history recognizes that it doesn’t matter what governments say or what agreements have been signed once mineral wealth is revealed in any meaningful quantity. Besides, the Transvaal Boer lacked the industrial backgrounds or manpower to exploit such a find on their own; they pretty much had to let others in if they were to take full advantage. Enter the Uitlanders. 

These British fortune-hunters (or “outlanders”) soon outnumbered the locals and began demanding greater political participation and basic protections. Factions rose up and clashed, tensions increased, and in 1877 the British officially annexed the Transvaal Republic. The Transvaal Boers accepted this arrangement because of a mutual enemy – the Zulu. Once the resulting Anglo-Zulu War in 1879 resolved that threat, however, the Boer resumed complaining about their rights being violated and all the other usual stuff. They declared independence from the British in December of 1880.

The First Boer War, aka “The Transvaal Rebellion” (1880 – 1881)

The Boer didn’t have a standing army. They used what was known as a “commando system,” which despite the cool name had more in common with the methods of the Ancient Greeks than it did Rambo movies. All male citizens between the ages of 16 and 60 were expected to report for militia duty, bringing their own horses, weapons, and food. They elected their own officers and eschewed formal uniforms.

These were hunters on the African veldt (“grasslands”), dressed in earth tones, accustomed to hiding in the most limited available cover, and taught by long experience that if you missed with your first shot, you were going vegetarian that evening. When the fighting went mobile, their skills on horseback were comparable to the tribes of the North American Great Plains or the Mongols of a few centuries before. They carried the convictions of Calvinism alloyed with the stubborn patience of generational farmers in a hostile land.

The British, on the other hand, were sporting those same bright red coats and frilly tactics you remember from the American Revolution. They rode horses, of course, but as a military skill, not a way of life. The result was about what you’d expect in those circumstances.

The First Boer War was Great Britain’s first military defeat since 1783, and an embarrassment of international scale. It didn’t help that such a high percentage of the forces who’d so dramatically triumphed seemed to be teenagers and old men.

Transvaal (aka “the South African Republic”) secured its independence in March of 1881, at least for a time. Great Britain settled on claiming “suzerainty” – a form of territorial control in which a people or region remains technically independent while in practice somewhat subservient to the stronger nation. European powers of this era generally avoided outright conquering and control of the areas they colonized, preferring instead to “exert influence” through less overt methods – thus giving themselves some degree of deniability concerning the fates of those they imperialized and giving themselves some “wiggle room” as power dynamics continued to evolve in places like, say… the Boer Republics.

And evolve they did. In the 1880s, the so-called “Scramble for Africa” began. This was a divvying up of sorts of the entire continent by European and other powers, who actually met in Berlin in 1884 to map out who would get what – a process largely responsible for the map of Africa as it looks today. It was done without reference to traditional divisions or tribal boundaries, a neglect made easier by the complete absence of anyone actually from Africa – including the Boers – at the conference.

So it wasn’t long before, once again, things weren’t looking too good for the Afrikaners. One way or the other, there was going to be another war.

Actual Reflections (and too many questions)

~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

ReflectingMy school is on trimesters, so coming back wasn’t a new start so much as picking up where we left off. Still, having two weeks to regroup and get a jump on some of the planning for this month was, well… it may have saved my life. At least emotionally.

Whatever the formatting of the –mesters, it’s a new year, calendrically-speaking. Last time I set out to reflect it ended up being a bit of a socio-political meltdown, so I set it all aside for a week of James Bond, Stars hockey, Who’s Line marathons, and Redd’s Blueberry Ale.

It was nice.

Now it’s time to put the big teacher panties on and get back to work. I’m in a new state, a new school, teaching a new subject in a very different environment than before, and while I love it here, and I’m surrounded by amazing people, the learning curve…

I mean, damn. I hate learning curves when they’re mine.

But that’s OK. It’s not like I’m a complete neophyte. I’ve taught a variety of subject to a weird range of students over the years – sometimes in less-than-ideal circumstances – and done fairly well. This is not a profession in which one’s primary concern is boredom.

Besides, actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. I went from VERY successful retail manager, to a daily Classroom inspiration and highly Respected education consultant…..

….to Major Social Media presence and THE Blue Cereal Education (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!

It’s in that most stablest and geniussy context that I’ll confess up front that I have more questions than answers. I realize how trite that sounds, and I’d rather dazzle you with catchy memes about open-ended inquiry being foundational to all wisdom, but… honestly? There are times I’d much rather have clear, simple solutions. Like now.

How Important Is It For Students To Like Their Teachers?

I’m not even sure this is the right question, or at least not the whole question. The issue is in any case more complicated than it sounds.

How important is it for students to trust their teachers? To respect their teachers? To believe that their teacher likes and/or respects them?

I’ll tell you this – things are much easier when students like and trust you. A helluva lot more fun, too. Kids who don’t love the content sometimes play along for the rapport. Kids frustrated with your expectations might complain, but generally go where you lead if they believe you’re looking out for them – AND that you know what you’re doing. “Mark my footsteps, my good page – tread thou in them boldly. Thou shalt find each history page will freeze thy blood less coldly…”

You can write about self-directed learning all you like, and I’m not arguing with how neato that must be – but I don’t meet many of these intrinsically-driven, hungry-for-struggle children. I have to woo and cajole and model and demand in impossible combinations for most progress to occur. It’s exhausting some days.

But there are those light bulb moments when kids who’ve been treading along with you solely because they’re pretty sure if they show effort you won’t fail them although you’re obviously insane and maybe some kids can do this but there’s no way they’ll ever—

Wait. This… did I just… you mean it…? OH MY GOD WE SEE IT NOW! THE KNOWLEDGE ENDORPHINS ARE MY NEW HOLY PLACE!!! WE ARE THINKY-MAN AND MAD HISTORY SKILLZ GURL!

You Were Saying, About Liking and Trusting…?

I love my kids by choice, but I also genuinely like most of them this year. (That doesn’t always happen, no matter what fluff-and-donuts you see on Twitter.) I’m also sure most of them know that I love them. Very few seem to actively dislike me.That last one isn’t a deal-breaker, but it’s convenient when they don’t hate you every day. That makes everything harder.

So, it’s not personal when things aren’t going well. Several of my better students, hanging out in my room by choice the other day, talking about life, and apparently genuinely interested in my honesty, casually mentioned that half the time they just don’t get this class, don’t really like the subject, and wish we did a number of things quite differently.

I wonder if Houdini, in his waning hours, found time to be flattered that his final visitor thought so highly of his abdominal muscles as to preclude any thought of pulling his punches. The comment stung, and it wasn’t the first time I’d heard similar sentiments – from solid students, good kids who were doing well in the class. They clearly meant no offense, and seemed oblivious to my near-death and subsequent internal wailing and gnashing.

I’m genuinely glad they’re comfortable being honest. It wasn’t personal. And not everyone finds the same things stimulating, or challenging, or interesting.

But while they like me well enough, they lack a foundation for trusting the way we’re doing things. Some of this is because it’s their first AP class, and some is because I’m new in the district and don’t yet have a “track record.” Some of it, though – and I hate this part – is because there are definitely things I should have done better, organized more effectively, known more about, handled differently.

That’s why it stung – because they weren’t entirely wrong.

A similar group a few days later suggested the reason so many resisted my approach was because it was no longer enough to just remember and recite the ‘right’ answers the way they always have – they’re expected to analyze what they know, and to apply it in unexpected ways.

I like that answer better. They weren’t wrong, either, but that doesn’t make the first group less correct.

The only way I know to fix the credibility issue is to be credible. That can only be done over time. Which brings me to…

How Important Is It For Teachers To Master Their Content?

We tell new teachers all the time that it doesn’t matter whether they know everything there is to know about their subject as long as they know how teach it and the kids know they care. We then tell them it’s OK that they don’t know everything there is to know about how to teach, as long as the kids know they care and they’ll get better at it over time.

Both of these things are true enough – for new teachers.

But really knowing and understanding your content and related skills does matter. It matters in your effectiveness, it matters in your credibility, and it matters in terms of how often you go home at the end of the day feeling like you suck and may have single-handedly destroyed the future and it’s only Wednesday.

I’ll feel better when I know the content better. I’ll do better when I’m more comfortable with the skills. Those things are both fixable – I have a “learning mindset,” after all – but like so many other things, they take time.

Am I Teaching To The Test? When Do I Stick To The Curriculum and When Do I Follow the Rabbit of Oh-My-God-I-Saw-A-Glimmer-Of-Interest?

I’ve written about this previously, and while I’m at peace with my awkward balance in theory, that hardly resolves the daily details. A related dilemma involves pushing ahead versus slowing down and sacrificing next week’s content and skills to better understand last week’s.

Most of you know exactly what I’m talking about because you wrestle with variations of this every week.

Am I Being Responsive To The Needs Of My Kids Or Just A Touch… Insecure?

We all know the stereotypes. The dry old fart who uses the same transparencies he inherited from his undead sire a century ago, uninterested in and incapable of change. Kids should adjust to him or take the consequences. The touchy-feely mess of frosted flakes in a frump-sweater, like Pauline Fleming in Heathers. (“I suggest we get everyone together in the cafeteria – both students and teachers – and just… TALK, and… FEEL! Together!”) She’d go to their parties if they’d invite her. The approval of teenagers is her only source of self-esteem.

Neither is typical, and neither is fair. But it’s genuinely not always easy to know when to adjust based on student response and when to stick to your guns believing you know what’s best. 

If I could have an answer to only one of my dilemmas, I’d probably start with this one. It’s tethered to a larger argument in education – the false dichotomy we’ve set up on social media between “grit-suffer-boot-camp-crush-them-for-progress!” and “nurture-cookies-love-coddle-them-into-excellence.” Kids simply aren’t that homogenous, nor most circumstances that binary.

Ideally, we’re all studied professionals, networking on social media, having hard conversations and sharing risky reflections within our departments, then moving ahead boldly, confident in the pedagogy and the kids alike. We adjust, we assess, we love, and we continue to learn, and at some point we hear the distant notes of Mr. Holland’s Opus being played down the hall saying maybe we did OK.

Sometimes, though, we’re just doing the best we can – kicking pedagogical booty one day and wondering if our brother-in-law can still get us that gig at his insurance office the next. That’s O.K. As long as we keep going, and getting better when we can.

I’m still looking for ways to be more effective, but I’m done worrying that it’s not right or not enough – at least for now. I’ll let you know how it goes.

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind ‘Education Reform’

RELATED POST: Teachers Are Delusional

RELATED POST: Teach Like You

We Think You Already Know This (A Letter from Kublai Khan)

~ Blue Cereal

You Oughta Know

One of the minor downsides to teaching ancient history for nearly half the year is that there simply aren’t the multitude of cool documents – letters, speeches, diaries, newspaper articles, and the like – which make U.S. or European History so naturally freakin’ awesome.

Sure, there are primary sources – statues, ceramics, broken bits of weaponry and whatnot. There are even textual remains – stuff carved into stone, bits of preserved parchments, maybe a book or two. These things are essential to the study of history and interesting enough in their own ancienty ways. I’m not trying to downplay the glories of Sanskrit or the impact of ancient law codes, or to question the value of innumerable two-line poems about dew on the grass sleeping in winter.

But in terms of modern engagement? They’re, well… challenging.

A woman’s duties are to cook the five grains, heat the wine, look after her parents-in-law, make clothes, and that is all! … She must follow the “three submissions.” When she is young, she must submit to her parents. After her marriage, she must submit to her husband. When she is widowed, she must submit to her son.

–Biography of Mengzi, mother of Confucian philosopher Mencius, fourth century B.C.E.)

Important, sure – but not particularly gripping. Here’s another essential excerpt:

And if you, my vassal, disobey or break this treaty… may the god Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end to all vegetation in your land. May his waters avoid your meadows and hit your land instead with a severe destructive downpour. May locusts devour your crops. May there be no sound of grinding stone or bread oven in your houses. May the wild animals eat your bread, and may your spirit have no one to take care of it and pour offerings of wine for it.

—Excerpt from a treaty between an Assyrian king and a subject city-state, circa 670 B.C.E.

LocustsThings are getting serious when you start wishing locusts on people. No one should wish for locusts. Wild animals eating your bread, sure – but locusts? That’s just harsh.

Not all extant texts are so serious. Some are real knee-slappers:

Apply yourself to being a scribe… you will be advanced by your superiors. You will be sent on a mission… love writing, shun dancing, then you become a worthy official… By day write with your fingers; recite by night. Befriend the scroll, the palette. It pleases more than wine… If you have any sense, be a scribe… and be spared from soldiering!

—Excerpt of a letter from a government official in Ancient Egypt to his son

HA! Those nutty river valley bureaucrats! (Dear god, get me to the Renaissance…)

But there was one moment of nerdy history-joy several weeks back when I came across a brief missive written by Kublai Khan to neighboring Japan in the year 1266. It begins like this:

Cherished by the Mandate of Heaven, the Great Mongol emperor sends this letter to the king of Japan. The sovereigns of small countries, sharing borders with each other, have for a long time been concerned to communicate with each other and become friendly.

Aw, that’s nice! He wants to be a good neighbor! Those cuddly Mongols. Can I borrow a cup of bloodshed?

The “Mandate of Heaven” to which he refers was a historiographic tool of Chinese scholars going waayyy back ago. It framed the rise and fall of various Chinese dynasties in terms of divine sanction. Royal lasciviousness brought about the collapse of the Zhou after long, corrupt centuries? That’s what happens when you lose the Mandate of Heaven. Liu Bang defeated Xiang Yu and re-united China under the Han? Well, he obviously had the Mandate of Heaven.

Kublai Khan

Kublai Khan, then, was rather bold in claiming the Mandate himself, given that he wasn’t exactly a proper emperor – not being Chinese and all. Still, he’d inaugurated his own dynasty (the Yuan) and the Mongols had been pretty much running the largest empire the world had ever known for over a half-century at that point, so, you know… they were doing something right.

Especially since my ancestor governed at heaven’s command, innumerable countries from afar disputed our power and slighted our virtue.

This made me laugh, probably because I’m reading way too much modern political overtone into it. “We’re God’s party here, trying to drain the Yellow Swamp, and all the foreign press can do is spread #FakeNews about us! SAD!”

Goryeo rendered thanks for my ceasefire and for restoring their land and people when I ascended the throne.

I prodded my poor students as to who “Goryeo” might be. Even with a map on the screen, it was a while before anyone guessed it might have something to do with Korea. And it does.

As in, it’s Korea.

They “rendered thanks for my ceasefire” and were super-appreciative that I let them keep working for me after I took over. They love me in Goryeo!

I’ll bet they did, Kubles. Subjugation and terror tend to bring that out in people.

Then again, it’s often tricky to gage tone with historical documents. While some things are universal across humanity, language and culture change dramatically over time – often in ways difficult to discern without a becoming a specialist of some sort.

Still, whatever else the Mongols were, they weren’t known for rhetorical nuance; I don’t think I’m overly projecting when I infer a very familiar tone in lines like this:

Our relation is feudatory like a father and son. We think you already know this.

Renaissance Dancers“Feudatory” is a funny word. It probably works better in the original tongue. The root, of course, is “feudal” – as in “feudalism.” It conjures up images of western European lords and serfs, trying to avoid the Plague while men in tights play recorders and bald clergymen harrumph about, gardening and copying books by hand.

But feudalism existed in a variety of forms, anywhere society was structured around relationships between landholders and those doing the actual producing. It sounds too close to slavery for most modern sensibilities, but it provided social stability and a physical security for common laborers which arguably fit the time and circumstances.

Still, Kublai is probably overselling the “father-son” thing a bit. Like the serfs, Korea had little choice in the arrangement, although in return for their loyalty they received the Mongols’ protection, which was no small thing.

Any doubt as to tone or intent begins to vanish with that next bit: “We think you already know this.”

Terse, isn’t it? Somehow things are feeling much less neighborly than they did only moments ago.

Goryeo is my eastern tributary. Japan was allied with Goryeo and sometimes with China since the founding of your country; however, Japan has never dispatched ambassadors since my ascending the throne. We are afraid that the Kingdom is yet to know this.

You never write, you never call, and you completely ignored our friend request on Facebook. I know you got our message – I can see the little checkmark and the time you read it. Do you know how that makes us feel?

Hence we dispatched a mission with our letter particularly expressing our wishes. Enter into friendly relations with each other from now on. We think all countries belong to one family. How are we in the right, unless we comprehend this?

Again with the super-friendlies. You know that line about walking softly but carrying a big stick? Kublai had Teddy Roosevelt beat by about six centuries.

“This is… a really nice place you got here, Benny. Isn’t it a nice place, Nicky?”

“It’s a great place, boss.”

“A man could really do well for himself in a place like this, Benny. He could provide for his family, couldn’t he, Nicky?”

“Ain’t nothin’ more important than family, Boss.”

“That’s so true. People what you gotta love, and protect… it can be such a dangerous world. It’s a shame, really – the things that can happen.”

“It’s a tragedy, Boss. I weep when I think of it.”

“A man’s gotta know who his friends are, Benny. He gots ta’ know who he can count on to help him prevent… accidents. Misfortunes. Ain’t that right, Nicky?”

*CRASH*

“Ah, now… Nicky just broke your kusanagi! Nicky, what have I told you about other folks’ holy relics?”

“That I gotta be more careful, Boss.”

“That you gotta be more careful. That coulda been his daughter. Right, Benny?”

Fake GangstersI mean, I can’t prove the Mongols talked and swaggered like bad movie mobsters in early 20th century Chicago, but you can’t prove they didn’t – and in today’s world, that makes my interpretation way truer than yours.

Finally, just to make sure the message isn’t received by some particularly dense diplomat and its intent even slightly misunderstood…

Nobody would wish to resort to arms.

That certainly would be a shame. The Mongols hated violence, you know.

But what a wonderful way to wrap up such a loaded dispatch. He doesn’t even have to cackle and rub his hands together maniacally – it’s all in the tone. 

The letter didn’t work. Kublai Khan tried a few more times, then resorted to military force. Two full-scale invasions were repulsed, both times in part due to monsoons, or “divine winds” working in favor of the Japanese. Their word for this is “kamikaze,” which I’m told will come up again later.

Hey, I don’t read ahead. I like to be surprised. 

It was a defining limit on Mongolian expansion, and a glorious moment in the early history of Japan. In both cases, the events of the 13th century shaped subsequent developments forever thereafter.

Which is, after all, a large part of why we study these things.

Most importantly, though, the exchange produced this letter, which we now read, analyze, and discuss in class. It’s distant enough to be history but approachable enough to be engaging. With a little effort, we can use it to anchor all sorts of changes and continuities and comparisons and connections. Thank you, Kubles – I LOVE this stuff!

But… I think you already know this.

RELATED POST: Thoughts on Primary Sources

RELATED POST: Humble Magniloquence (Purdy Words in Primary Sources)

RELATED POST: Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary (Part One)