Will we see more "long hot summers" soon?

My Roosevelt to Reagan and History of the American City students will recognize the phrase in quotation marks above--the "long hot summers": those dreadful and wrenching urban riots that tore apart hundreds of American cities between 1964 and 1968.

An interesting op-ed piece in today's New York Times (click here to read) suggests that American cities are not repeating those riots today even though the economy is dreadful because of policies of the first Obama administration. But those programs are now rapidly ending. According to Patrick Sharkey, a sociology professor at NYU, programs from the stimulus (remember that?) helped to destroy or rehabilitate abandoned buildings so they would not become crime spots, put teachers back into schools, and returned police to neighborhood streets. The problem, though, is that stimulus money has been spent.

And so Sharkey asks, "what comes next, now that the stimulus is over? A historical perspective on urban policy reveals a cycle in which periods of major investment are followed by periods of neglect, disinvestment and decline. This pattern is in the process of repeating."

Will American cities erupt in more "long hot summers"? 

"Messing With the Wrong City"

Dennis Lehane is the author of several fine urban historical novels. He is a native of Boston and still lives in Dorchester, the home of the eight-year-old killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. I strongly recommend his op-ed piece in the New York Times which you can find here.

I often tell students when I teach the American Revolution that the Boston Massacre was no massacre at all--five people killed. The name "massacre" was bestowed upon it by patriot propagandists in very short order, along with Paul Revere's incendiary and wildly inaccurate engraving of the massacre--something widely known to everyone who's gotten past second grade in this country.

Today, of course, we don't need the imaginations of illustrators and engravers. The cellphone cameras and videos captured the horrific details: more video footage to add to our grisly collective library of terrorist damage.

Do read Dennis Lehane's posting: it says much about Boston and its character.

Today my American urban history class begins its foray into urban renewal --its goals, its costs, and its results. What better way to showcase the old making way for the new than this shot of Albany's Empire State Plaza? The buildings in the foreground exemplify the late nineteenth century row house neighborhoods that were flattened to make way for the state government building complex. The architecture of the plaza exemplifies the modernist dreams of architects and planners of the mid twentieth century.

Shameless plug for a new book

Here is a shameless plug for a new book in which I have contributed a chapter. The book, Silencing Cinema, has just been shipped from Palgrave and is now available at an online bookstore near you....(as the old saying goes).

The book includes chapters on film censorship around the world, an area of censorship study that has been woefully neglected...until now! In it you'll find chapters by scholars the likes of which makes me blush to have been included--big names in the history of American film censorship like Gregory Black and Jon Lewis. The book looks at American censorship (of course) but also censorship in  China, Nigeria, Latin America, Italy, Brazil, Turkey, and Northern Europe. No other work has dealt with film censorship on such a broad geographical scale. My thanks to editors Daniel Biltereyst and Roel Vande Winkel for including my work on American governmental censorship in such a prestigious volume.

Click on the book above to go to Palgrave's site, or click here to go to Amazon.com to learn more.

Whatever happened to the phrase "there are"?

I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed this, although I don't hear anyone else railing about it...
But whatever happened to the phrase, "there are"?

Lately what I notice people saying--including professional broadcasters--is "there's" followed by something plural.

"There's lots of reasons for...."

"There's opinions on all sides..."

It's gotten so ubiquitous that I don't think people hear it anymore for what it is: illiterate speech. There: I've said it.

Would you ever dream of saying "There is opinions on all sides"? Of course not. But that's exactly what you are saying if you say "there's opinions on all sides."

So, my question for the day: what's wrong with "there are"?

Biased or just expressing a point of view?

In the last few years, I've noticed students becoming quite jaded about bias. Maybe it's because you've all grown up in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and its incessant need to be fed and the immense amounts of money to be made from advertising on said 24-hour news networks. Whatever the cause, many of you are so skeptical that you believe everything to be biased (and, yes, I did spell the word correctly just now--please note--bias is the noun and biased is the adjective).

Anyway, the word biased has a strongly negative connotation. It means something (or someone) so slanted in one way or another that it may lose veracity (or as Stephen Colbert would say, truthiness). But because someone writes or shoots something with a point of view in mind, does that necessarily make the outcome--the article, book, or movie--biased?

On the other hand, I am really glad to see that students are skeptical about the motives of the producers of information. That's good and healthy. One of the first things I do when I get an email forward about how my phone is going to explode or my gas tank will kill me, is to run it past Snopes.com. Those good folks do the work for us so we don't have to hunt down every unfounded rumor. That kind of skepticism is helpful.

So, keep up the good work. Be skeptical and be discriminating consumers of information, but don't let it make you so biased yourself that you believe nothing you see, hear, or read.

Resolutions for a new semester

I have an answer to C and D grades in your classes!

It's simple: pay attention. (stop rolling your eyes, because I can see you do that from the front of the room...more on the front of the room later)

I don't say this to sound flip: I mean it. It's just that simple.

Here's what I'm talking about. We're all bombarded every minute of the day with sounds and visuals grabbing for our attention--from advertisers on TV and websites to the music blasting through our iPods and the urgent need to get that latest update onto Facebook. Then there are the deadlines--constantly, endless, annoying deadlines--to pay this bill or to write that paper or to get 50% off.

So, when we get to class, we're all a bit distracted. But hear me out: if you let all that distracting stuff go when you walk through the door of that Earth Sciences or Humanities building, if you give yourself over totally to the professor and the subject, you can escape from all that distracting and annoying life stuff AND you can really learn more.

We professors know a lot more about being a student than you might realize. Think about it this way: who's spent more time in higher education than we have? Four years undergrad (like you), then two years for a master's degree, then another five years (at least) for a PhD. Actually, the national average to complete a PhD is longer. There's even an organization studying just how long it does take. But I digress...

If we know so much about being student, you ask, why do we make you jump through all these hoops to get a college degree? It's because we want you to learn. Not just facts--those can be looked up these days so easily--it's the "big picture" ideas that we want you to learn--things you can't look up on Google. And you can't contemplate or absorb the "big picture" of a subject if you're looking at your friend's Facebook page or sending an Instagram. You think you can, but you can't. There have been all sorts of studies done on multi-tasking and how well it works. The bottom line is that it doesn't.

So, want to get As and Bs in all your courses so you can impress your prospective employers or grad school admission officers? Then pay attention today. Better yet, sit in the front of the room. Studies have been done on that, and those students who do sit up front generally tend to focus more and do better (and if you need recommendation letters, we're more likely to know who you are if you're up there every day.)

Two more reasons to pay attention: (1) this course is costing a lot of money--either to your parents or to you so you might as well get the most out of it and (2) your GPA really does matter. It will follow you for the rest of your life. Say you decide ten years from now to go to grad school. There that GPA will be. Do you want it to read 2.4 or 3.4? It's a big difference.

One final reason: I've never heard anyone my age (don't ask) say, "gee, I wish I'd studied less in college." 

When did "lifestyle" replace the word "life"?

It's research paper and final exam grading time, so I will offer my latest musings on students' use of words. My first question is why do I so often read the word "lifestyle" when the more simple, and more correct word, "life" would be better?

Here's an example of what I'm seeing:

"Immigrants came from all over the world seeking a better lifestyle."

Why not:

"Immigrants came from all over the world seeking a better life." ?

The word "lifestyle" means a particular way of living--as in a bohemian lifestyle or a green lifestyle or a back-to-the-earth lifestyle.

Immigrants didn't come to America seeking a better lifestyle; they came seeking a better life.

Let's always remember to use simpler words whenever possible. That's what makes writing strong and effective.

Happy Evacuation Day!

Overshadowed by Thanksgiving these days, Evacuation Day (November 25) used to be a big deal for New Yorkers. This is the day that the British finally departed after a war-long occupation of New York City.

As they departed, the British offered today's version of a a rude gesture by hoisting the Union Jack and then greasing the flagpole so it could not retrieved. On their way out of the harbor, the sore losers saw that some intrepid Yank had managed to make his way up the flagpole (using spikes on his boots) to yank down the hated flag. Incensed at the American flag now waving in the breeze, one captain ordered his men to fire a round but it fell harmlessly into the water. The last shot of the war was truly a dud.

After the ships had left, General Washington and New York Governor Clinton repaired to a popular drinking hole called Fraunces Tavern and offered a series of thirteen toasts to the departed British including:

"May America be an Asylum to the Persecuted of 

       the Earth."

"May a close Union of the States guard the Temple

       they have erected to Liberty."

 "May the Remembrance of THIS DAY, be a Lesson to Princes."

(capitalization from the original  document.)

Evacuation Day was a major holiday every year in New York City until World War I when Americans needed to be nice to the Brits again (they were, after all, our allies against the Germans). It was such a big deal that Confederate spies planned to burn the city's major hotels and capture the treasury building on November 25, 1864, hoping the drunken revelry would cover the fires until they were full-blown blazes. (Somehow, they missed the big party and actually set the fires days later when they were easily discovered and the plot foiled.)

After World War I, Evacuation Day lost much of its rowdiness. Today, it's just a small commemoration in Battery Park. But, hey, we historians can celebrate it.

For more, see New York Archives magazine, Fall 2010 (pictured above) and a marvelous 2004 story at The New York Times.

Get lost in the past for a while.

If you find old photos fascinating, especially ones like this one taken at a place much in the news these days--Rockaway Beach--you must bookmark Shorpy.com.

This is a phenomenal resource for the urban historian, the late 19th century historian, the 20th century historian, and anyone else who likes to look into the past.

It's also an addictive website, so if you have five minutes to spare and want to poke around at the thousands of high-res historical photographs, you might find that an hour has gone by.

The site is searchable, although the search engine only looks for words in the title and the captions (which are frustratingly brief), but it's astonishing what you can find.

And all the photos enlarge to amazing size and detail. Click on the original and watch it balloon to proportions that allow you to feel as if you've walked onto the street right there from your desktop. You can do this, of course, from your smartphone, but save any real exploration for your computer screen--the photos are such high quality that you'll want to see them in all their full size. 

So, go look at Shorpy. com and get lost in the past for a while.

Annotate your text!

There is a new thread on the website of the Chronicle of Higher Education today about whether we professors should teach annotation of your reading material.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should!

But, you say, how? It's really quite simple.

Step 1: In each paragraph, look for the main idea--the "big picture," (sorry, I know I overuse that cliche, but I can't come up with anything more appropriate) and then highlight that.Your goal is to be able to go back through the chapter and be able to read the highlights and get a full picture of what that chapter is about. Sure beats re-reading the whole thing.

Step 2: Put a symbol of some sort in the margin for particularly important, surprising, or opinion-based ideas. For example, if something is clearly very important--like the first time that something ever happened or something that changed everything that came afterward, put a star in the margin. If it's something that really surprises you, put an exclamation mark in the margin. For statements that are the author's opinion (something that someone else might be able to argue), put a check mark in the margin.

Step 3: when it's time to review for a quiz or an exam, go back and read those underlinings and note the margin symbols.

Step 4: to figure out the main point of an article--what the author is arguing and what you should remember about that argument--go back and re-read just those underlinings that have a check mark next to them. Go through all of them, write the most important ones down in your notebook or computer file, and then you've got a good idea of that author's thesis.

Try this system or any variation you think will work for you. Trust me: it will make a difference. I have an awful memory and yet I managed to get through my doctoral comprehensive exams (written and oral testing of 160 books!) using this system. Without it, I never would have made it.

If you have another system, let's hear about it. Not every system will work for everyone. The point is to start talking about this and to start doing it. The bookstore is not going to give you any more money for your book if you sell it back to them in pristine condition. So, mark away!

Oftentimes?

What has happened to the word often? This useful, simple, common word has apparently gone through a metamorphosis, but I can't figure out why.

First, people started to pronounce the t. "Off-ten," they would say. Why? Where did the long-silent t go? Did people think this sounded more erudite or more sophisticated?

Now, people are saying and writing oftentimes instead of the much simpler, much preferable often. Again, why?

And now I've noticed that people are saying the totally unnecessary oftentimes with that t pronounced.

So, my question for today is this: why? Do people think that saying oftentimes (with the t) sounds better or smarter?

Here's what I maintain: if a simple word is working, don't mess with it. All those oftentimes-types out there, please put that word away: often will work just fine.

Exam Writing Advice Redux

I am cutting and pasting here a blog post from March 2011. As we approach exam time, I think it's a good idea to revisit advice on how to write a good essay exam answer. Here is the text of the original March 31, 2011 post:

This post is for all my students, present, past, and future. I am writing to offer advice today on how to write essay or short-answer or identification exams.

First, read the question carefully. Then read it again--carefully. Then read it a third time, underlining any important words such as "most" or "major." Then don't start writing.

But, I'm pressed for time, I hear you say. And, yes, of course, there are time constraints on exams. Some of us can work quickly, and some of us need more time to compose our thoughts. Knowing the clock is ticking can make many quite nervous. But, still I say don't start writing--unless it is to make a list. 

If you take the time to think about exactly what the question is asking and then start to formulate an answer by pulling an idea from here and a component from there, you will wind up with a much better answer. So, don't start writing right away.

Essay and short answer questions are designed to make you think. They are not intended to be the kind of answer that you can memorize and then just write down. So, taking time to think about the answer--wracking your brain, if you will, is crucial.

There are two most important components to an essay or short answer. The first is that your answer pertains to what the question is asking and ONLY what the question is asking. The second is that your answer is complete. If you leave something critical out, you will not get full credit.

Once you've determined that your list is complete and pertains to only that subject the question is asking about, then you can start writing. And then the writing should go pretty smoothly and quickly.

This method sounds as if it will take too much time, but for most people it will probably take less time or the same amount of time. And it will result in a significantly better score.

So, be sure to take the time to think about all the possible components that would need to go into a complete answer, make lists of those things, then look at the list and cross out any that don't specifically pertain to that individual question.

Then you can start writing. If there is interest, I will write more about answering essay-type answers for history exams in the future. If you want more tips, just let me know by leaving a comment or mentioning this blogpost to me after class.

The Seven Coolest Presidents in US history? Let's Make it Ten

Recently, NPR (National Public Radio) broadcast a piece on the "7 Coolest Presidents in American History."* You can read the story here:

"The 7 Coolest Presidents in American History"

I think this is all well and good, to use the old phrase, but how about making it the Ten Coolest Presidents in American History?

I'll start the conversation by putting into nomination the name of Abraham Lincoln. In terms of coolness in the face of seemingly insurmountable problems and overwhelming national division, Lincoln remained truly "cool."

 Anyone care to nominate presidents # 9 and #10 for our list?

* Note: While style manuals insist that numbers below ten should be spelled out, I have not done so here because this is the way the NPR story has its headline. It's extremely important that scholars quote words exactly as they find them, even if that appears to be wrong.

The importance of proofreading

A few days ago, I posted an entry about the president's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

I am an inveterate proofreader--I even proofread my emails before I send them, and who does that?

Anyway, I did my usual proofreading before I published the blog post. Imagine my chagrin when I looked at my blog this morning and found a big, old, nasty mistake in the headline. I had written "Did the president said what many Americans don't want to hear?" Egad.

This is a perfect example of why I always suggest to students that they have someone else proofread their important papers and assignments. Often, we don't see our own mistakes. My last blogpost is a perfect example.

So do as I say, not as I do. Have someone else read your writing before submission. It could save you from all kinds of embarrassment--and could have saved me from having to write this post!

Did the President Say What Many Americans Don't Want to Hear: or Did He Strike the Right Tone?

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, President Obama gave a very different message than he did in the same speech four years ago.

In 2008, Obama's overall message was one of "hope and change." Four years later, the message is considerably toned-down. He said, "you didn't elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell the truth."

Maybe that made for a good sound bite and maybe that statement should be true, but history would tell Obama a different story. In the midst of a staggering economic downturn at the end of the 1970s that was bleeding over into 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter, not because people wanted to hear the truth, but because they wanted a leader who would make them feel better about themselves. Jimmy Carter, president from 1977 to 1980, had tried to tell the American people "the truth," and the response was either flat or negative (depending on whether you see the glass as half full or half empty).

The lesson from the Carter-Reagan election of 1980 should be that the American people don't want their president to "tell the truth" if that message is that hard times are going to linger and belts need to be tightened. If Romney can send a more positive message, and I'm sure that he will try, he may be following the lessons of Reagan. Obama would do well not to emulate Jimmy Carter. (remember, he lost).

But there are clear signs that Obama has learned from the missteps of Jimmy Carter. Toward the end of Obama's acceptance speech, he said, "as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America. Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I’m naive about the magnitude of our challenges.I’m hopeful because of you." 

Starting with a cautionary tone, he finished strong. And he finished positive. He has clearly paid attention to history.

"Me and my buddies"?

Why is that so many well-educated, smart, ambitious young people now routinely say something like "Me and my buddies wanted to play the game so we downloaded it last night."

Really? "me" as the subject of a sentence? Would you ever dream of saying "Me wanted to play the game so I downloaded it last night"? Of course not. You know better. And no one wants to sound like Cookie Monster once you've passed your tween years.

So, why say "me and my buddies" as the subject of a sentence? Where did this come from? I never heard this, except from uneducated people, before a few years ago. I know that language changes with the times, and some of those changes are good and necessary, but this one is awful.

I don't know how to say this without sounding obnoxious, but if you speak this way in a job interview or at a meeting, you will sound uneducated.

Do yourself a favor. Listen to what you say (something few of us do) and see if you say "me and my...." routinely. If you find you're doing it, stop. "Me and my friends" as the subject simply must be changed to "My friends and I."

Please.

And if any of you can enlighten me as to where you think this came from, I'd love to hear your ideas.

2009 Tobacco Warnings Probably Heading to the Supreme Court

Of constitutional interest to us all are the 2009 tobacco warnings created by Congress. These new, far more graphic messages about the health dangers of smoking have been challenged by tobacco companies as infringements of their rights to corporate free speech. Now, two appeals courts have ruled, one upholding the warnings and one striking them down.

That sort of disagreement within the lower federal courts is a typical justification for the Supreme Court to agree to hear the cases. So, look for further developments on this issue. I'll keep you posted.

Share your thoughts: do you think these warnings infringe on free speech? [You can leave comments anonymously, if you wish.]

What I'm reading/listening to this summer

As a teacher, I'm always looking for information to add to my lectures and discussions. So, my summers and winter break are usually spent behind book covers or with an iPod stuck to my head. So far this summer, I've read City Horse (marvelous topic but could have been an article rather than an entire book), and Paul Grohndal's intriguing biography of Albany's forever-seeming mayor, Erastus Corning (he was in office for 40 years....really). Now I'm reading City of Scoundrels: The 12 Days of Disaster That Gave Birth to Modern Chicago and I'm listening to Island of Vice: Theodore Roosevelt's Doomed Quest to Clean Up Sin-Loving New York.


For my 12-hour drive home to North Carolina last month, I listened to The Help. I am completely torn about its historical accuracy--it is after all a novel--but I surely did enjoy the dramatic and convincing narration. My marathon trip seemed more like six or eight hours than the the half orbit around the sun that it actually is. 


I enjoy listening to books and lectures as I walk/run/ride-the-bus, and I strongly suggest this to my students. Sometimes I fantasize that all those earbuds I see on campus are playing Shakespeare or Proust rather than the hip-hop or Fall Out Boy I know is blasting out. But the problem with listening to a book rather than reading it, is the inability to slow it down where you'd like to spend more time and speeding it up when your hand would like to be flipping pages. The technology has allowed me, however, to expose myself to far more books and lectures than I ever could have had the time or the eyeball strength to have managed. 


So, get out your iPod, find a good audiobook library (audible.com has a surprisingly large selection) and get listening. Here's a suggestion to get you started: Imagine: How Creativity Works.