This was an interesting panel mainly due to how the moderator (Murray Fromson) dealt with the panel. He was attempting to give each 15-20 minutes distinct segments -- though he seemed to be giving Miriam Pawel a little too much time. The audience started to get irritated. The audience actually complained during Fromson's last question for Pawel. He essentially told them to shut up.
The following is stolen from the program guide except for Miriam Pawel's who was a last minute add.
Miriam Pawel. This one is stolen from goodreads.com. She is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who spent 25 years as a reporter and editor at Newsday and the Los Angeles Times before becoming an author and independent historian.
Amy Louise Wood. Wood is a history professor at Illinois State University, with an emphasis in American cultural and intellectual history in Southern U.S. history.
Martha A. Sandweiss. Sandweiss, a professor of history at Princeton University, began her career as a museum curator and taught for 20 years at Amherst College.
The following is my summary of the panel discussion:
Sandweiss.
Wrote a book about Clarence King, a famous geologist who was married to an African American.
This might not seem strange in 2010, but this was back in the mid-1800s.
Their two girls were declared as whites.
Their two boys were declared as blacks and fought in WWI in segregated units.
Powell.
Wrote a book about Cesar Chavez.
Listened to 1,000 hours of tapes.
Heroes have flaws.
Narrative history of farm workers.
Many who joined Chavez at the beginning were purged by the 1980s.
He eventually turned on everyone. He is an example of a charismatic leader who was able to build something but not able to run it.
She found it difficult to get people to talk about Chavez.
There seemed to be conflict of direction. Chavez wanted a movement that involved all the poor. His associates wanted a farm union.
Wood.
Wrote a book about lynching, racial violence.
Came to the project when she saw photos of lynching. She wondered why would people take photos.
She found that lynching was very ritualistic. It was more than a political act, it was a cultural act.
It was an important message to whites about their racial dominance.
It aligned with such events as public executions.
Many lynchers were church-goers.
Saw lynching as a reaction to modernity.
Lynching started to die away around WWII.
Feels those who lynch have similarities with the Tea Party. (My comment: seems a bit of an extreme position to take.)
No comments:
Post a Comment