You did it! You reached the end of Fall 2020.
We have just one last module blog post to read together! In this one, we'll wrap up the Reagan administration, and end with a discussion of the final decade of the twentieth century, the 1990s. Much of the 1990s resonates with our current political debates and I'm interested to see where you all see the overlap.
Three questions will guide this module blog post:
How did the language of responsibility and individualism shape the definition of American citizenship in the late twentieth century?
How did changing demographics and the rise of “multiculturalism” affect how Americans envisioned and defined American society?
What was at stake in the “Culture Wars” of the 1990s?
Let's do it! The last one!
Part I: The End of the Cold War
We'll conclude our discussion of the Reagan administration with an examination of Reagan's foreign policy.
In foreign policy, Reagan resumed vigorous denunciation of the Soviet Union, calling it the “evil empire,” and sponsored the largest military buildup in American history. In 1983, he announced on television a new strategy called the “Strategic Defense Initiative,” which would provide a defense against Soviet missile attacks. The SDI, nicknamed “Star Wars” by its critics, would supposedly be able to shoot down incoming Soviet missiles while they were still out in space far above the earth. One expert predicted that the technology Reagan proposed would require eight times the new discoveries that sent the first astronauts to the moon.
When Reagan came into office he was determined to overturn the “Vietnam syndrome,” widespread public resistance to committing American forces overseas. He dispatched marines to Lebanon in 1982 as a peace-keeping force, but withdrew them quickly after a bomb killed 241 Americans. Just days after that bomb, he sent American troops to the Caribbean island of Grenada, in order to oust a pro-Cuban government and to protect the approximately 1,000 Americans there. The government collapsed and was replaced by one more acceptable to the US. This won him points at home, as people perceived that he was strong enough to not be afraid to go in and use force, and was able to “win quickly and get out.” He represented the incident as one of the first “rollbacks” of Communist influence since the Cold War had started.
Iran-Contra Affair
The Reagan administration also supported anticommunist regimes in Latin America and Africa in an attempt to fight communism. This led to one of the greatest scandals of Reagan’s presidency, the Iran-Contra Affair. Reagan had attacked the Sandinista government in Nicaragua for its ties to Cuba and aid to Salvadorian leftists. Trying to overthrow the Sandinistas with force, Reagan armed a force of anti-Sandinista Nicaraguans (known as the Contras) with the use of the CIA. The CIA trained the Contras, and also flew air missions, which damaged neutral ships. The American public reacted strongly, and Congress banned military aid to the Contras in 1984.
In 1985 though, Reagan secretly authorized the sale of arms to Iran, which was involved in a war with Iraq, in order to secure the release of a number of American hostages held by Islamic groups in the Middle East. The CIA director and National Security Council officials set up a system that diverted some of the proceeds from that arms sale to buy military supplies for the Contras in defiance of the congressional ban. That scheme continued for nearly two years.
In 1987, the story broke, and Congress held televised hearings that revealed a pattern of official duplicity and violation of the law that reminded people of the Nixon era. Eleven members of the administration were convicted of perjury or destroying documents. Regan denied knowledge of the illegal proceedings, but the affair did undermine public confidence in him and his administration. [1]
The End of the Cold War
Between 1985 and 1987, Reagan entered into a series of talks with the Soviet premier, Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev had come to power in 1985, and instituted a new policy of perestroika (economic restructuring) that was to be pushed ahead by glasnost (political openness). He also moved to replace the Communist Party bureaucrats with a new government.
In addition, Gorbachev and Reagan were able to negotiate a reduction and eventual elimination of intermediate and short-range nuclear missiles in Europe. They also discussed a more open exchange of science and culture, and pledged cooperation to clean up the environment. In 1988, Reagan repudiated his earlier comments about the Soviet Union being an “evil empire,” and spoke of a “new era.” Reagan is widely remembered for his part in “winning” the cold war, after having completed this diplomatic mission. However, he recognized the role that Gorbachev had played. At a press conference in 1988 in Moscow, he stated, “Mr. Gorbachev deserves most of the credit as the leader of this country.” [2]
Poll #1:
In your opinion, which (20th-century) president’s administration had the largest impact on American culture, economics, and politics? FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, or someone else? Answer in the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Part II: Race and Rights in the 1990s
In Part II, we’ll assess broader changes in American language and political landscape through several key events and policies of the 1990s.
In terms of changing political language and landscapes, the 1988 election is an illustrative example. One of the reasons why the Republican candidate, George H.W. Bush, defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, was his effective labeling of Dukakis as a “liberal,” meaning that Dukakis was weak on crime, defense, and patriotism. Bush also called attention to the fact that Dukakis had vetoed a bill requiring Massachusetts children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Conservative assumptions about the virtues of the free market and the evils of “big government” dominated the mass media and political debates, and would be embraced by many Democrats in the 1990s as well as Republicans.
President George H.W. Bush often spoke of a “new world order” in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed, the year 1989 marked momentous changes throughout the world: students demonstrated at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, the Berlin Wall fell, uniting East and West Germany, and the Soviet Union dissolved, as each of the republics declared themselves to be sovereign states. By 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, becoming fifteen new independent nations. The United States considered this the collapse of communism and the beginning of a world capitalist system.
.jpg)
It was unclear as to what the US’ role would be in the “new world order.” In 1991, the United States launched Operation Desert Storm, driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, which Iraq had invaded in 1990. The US feared that Saddam Hussein might next attack Saudi Arabia, which was a longtime ally of the US and supplied more oil to the US than any other country. Within a hundred hours, the 700,000 ground troops Bush sent into Kuwait overwhelmed the Iraqis and a truce was arranged. Bush’s approval ratings rose to an unprecedented 89 percent. He remarked that the US had finally kicked the “Vietnam syndrome,” and they were no longer reluctant to trust their military to use massive force.
Bush identified the Gulf War as the first step in the struggle to create a world rooted in democracy and global free trade. But officials in the Bush administration were divided as to how this vision would be translated into policy.
Poll #2:
In your opinion, in 2020, as a whole, has the United States “kicked” the “Vietnam syndrome”? (i.e. public aversion to overseas military involvements) Answer in the embedded poll below, or access the poll here.
Clinton's Presidency
Although Bush’s approval rating was at an all-time high at the end of the Gulf War, later in 1991, the economy slipped into a recession, and more and more Americans polled believed that America was on the wrong track. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, on a platform of social liberalism (supporting abortion rights, gay rights, and affirmative action) but with elements of conservatism (he pledged to reduce government bureaucracy, and “end welfare as we know it”).
Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in his first budget, along with an increase in taxes. The EITC was a cash payment for low-income workers. It raised 4 million Americans above the poverty line during Clinton’s presidency. In 1993, Clinton obtained congressional approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was a treaty negotiated by Bush that created a free-trade zone consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the US. A free-trade agreement is a pact between countries to lift most or all tariffs, quotas, special fees and taxes and other barriers to trade. The purpose is to allow faster and more business between the countries, which should benefit all parties. The idea is that each country will specialize in a particular area or product, and should mutually benefit from the agreement and generate more overall income.
NAFTA was met with resistance from American labor, who feared that jobs would move to cheaper Mexican plants. Environmentalists worried that the US laws to protect the environment would give way to weaker Mexican standards. And although politicians argued that NAFTA would fix the problem of undocumented migration from Mexico into the US, because Mexico would be enhanced and be able to create jobs at home, it failed at this goal. US employers continue to recruit and rely on low-wage Mexican workers. In additions, many Canadians rebelled against NAFTA, believing it was flooding their country with US goods.
Clinton’s major policy initiative in his first term was health care reform. A plan devised by a panel headed by First Lady Hillary Clinton addressed the rising cost of health care and the increasing number of Americans who lacked health insurance. Clinton’s plan would have provided universal coverage through organizations like HMOs. Clinton argued that health care, like Social Security, should be safe and available to all.
Although initially 60 percent of Americans approved of Clinton’s plan, public and legislative support almost immediately eroded. Doctors and health insurance companies objected, fearing that government regulations would limit reimbursement for medical procedures, insurance rates, and the cost of drugs.
The plan was also too complex to be easily understood by most voters, and faced criticism for further expanding an unpopular federal bureaucracy. The plan died in 1994.
These three initiatives reveal the dynamics in Clinton’s presidency. He did turn away from the economic and social policies of the Reagan and Bush years, as seen in the EITC. However, his goal of expanding the welfare state through health care failed. His success with NAFTA represented his position as a moderate—NAFTA was initiated under Bush and was passed with solid Republican support. His position as a centrist becomes especially important when we consider his Welfare Reform Act of 1996.
Welfare Reform
The 1994 elections resulted in a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. Clinton adopted a new strategy, allying himself with Democrats on some issues and Republicans on other issues, supporting issues and legislation that would appeal to “middle class voters,” including a balanced budget, new laws to fight crime, and violence on TV. One of the issues that really cemented Clinton’s status as a moderate was his decision to sign a welfare reform bill that revamped the nation’s welfare system.
In 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which essentially reversed sixty years of federal welfare policy. It eliminated the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with block grants to the states, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The states were permitted to establish their own requirements for recipients. Instead of one national program for all poor mothers and children, there were now fifty programs.
Under TANF, families could only receive aid for a maximum of five years, and adults who received welfare could be required to work in order to receive benefits. No welfare aid could be given to aliens, even legal aliens.
The welfare reform act also encouraged states to promote marriage as a solution to welfare and poverty. (If you scroll to page 6 of the PDF document linked above, you'll see the first line of the act: "Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.") States were allowed, though not required, to deny coverage to unwed mothers under eighteen and to children born on the rolls.
One of the most significant changes in welfare reform was how single mothers were redefined as workers rather than mothers. Mothers on welfare were increasingly viewed as people taking advantage of the system, so encouraging work was widely supported. The new act basically reframed poverty as an individual problem, requiring the personal responsibility of the welfare recipient to sort it out. [3]
Within this individualist framework, poor people were not “entitled” to assistance, because welfare was viewed as promoting failed individual initiative. Welfare reform has resulted in less people on the welfare rolls, prompting many to proclaim it as a public success. However, the number of people who are in poverty has not changed.
Poll #3:
Looking back on the different versions of public assistance to mothers with dependent children we have discussed throughout the twentieth century, to what extent was welfare reform in 1996 significantly different from its predecessors? Was it a fundamental departure? Or a different way of administering benefits based on the same ideologies? Answer in the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas illustrate lingering conflicts about power in society, and the intersections of race and gender in the wake of the civil rights era. After Thomas was nominated for Supreme Court justice, Anita Hill, a law professor who had worked with Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the early 1980s came forward with the information that Thomas had sexually harassed her. The Senate reopened Thomas’ confirmation hearing to assess his suitability for the Supreme Court.
In 1991, Thomas was confirmed by the smallest margin of confirmation for any Supreme Court justice in US history, until Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed in 2018 by an even smaller margin.
In the embedded video below, watch a portion of Anita Hill’s opening statement. Hill’s testimony revealed the difficulty in implementing the policies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the stark absence of diversity in persona and thought in the nation’s elected bodies and governance system.
As you can see from the photo below, Hill, an African American woman, was questioned by an all white, all male panel of senators.
In the video below, watch how Thomas responded to Hill’s claims. The most notable line from his response was:
“It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to the old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the US Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”
At the end of the hearings, sexual harassment had been brought to national attention, leading to the review and revision of sexual harassment policies by businesses and corporate institutions. In addition, a record number of Black women ran for the US House of Representatives in 1992, and the record number of women, both white and Black, elected to Congress in 1992 was dubbed “the Anita Hill Class.”
Poll #4:
In your opinion, did the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings generate an improvement for gender relations in the United States? Answer in the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Sexual harassment was once again in the public eye in 1994, when Paula Jones filed a civil suit charging that Clinton had sexually harassed her while serving as governor of Arkansas. In 1998, it became known that Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.
In December 1998, the Republican controlled House voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, and he became the second president to be tried before the Senate. The vote failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to remove Clinton from office. Polls revealed that more Americans were appalled by the obsession of Kenneth Starr, the special counsel who had compiled the report detailing Clinton’s relationship with Lewinksy, and Congress with Clinton’s sexual behavior than they were at the behavior itself.
LA Riots
In 1992, Los Angeles erupted into a massive riot in response to a legal verdict in which four white police officers were acquitted of charges of assault with a deadly weapon and excessive use of force. The white officers had beaten a black man, Rodney King, after a high-speed chase in 1991. An amateur cameraman caught the beating on videotape. (Read more about it in Caden's I-Search Paper!)
The urban uprisings of the 1960s were associated with the civil rights movement and seen as a violent reaction to structural racism and poverty. In stark contrast, the 1992 LA riots were viewed by the mass media as a largely futile and even ill-expressed rage against order, representing a shift towards a much more conservative perspective on social unrest.
But, the riots in LA were much more complicated than “rage against order.” They represented frustration at what African Americans viewed as an unjust system, pent-up anger and frustrations against police brutality, and years of social and economic inequality. (Think about the context of this in terms of the War on Drugs, and the disproportionate number of Blacks who were entering the prison system. The relationship between police and the African American community was not good.)
The LA Riots lasted for three days, and were concentrated in the inner city of South Central LA. They resulted in 54 deaths, 4,500 shops burned to the ground, and $1 billion in property damage.
There were other racial dynamics at play here as well. Of the shops burned, 2,500 of them were owned by Korean immigrants and Korean-Americans, largely in the US in the wake of the 1965 Immigration Act.
Their businesses were predominantly located in low income neighborhoods and they had a largely African American customer base. There was a lot of tension between Korean storeowners and African Americans, due to differences in language and “culture clash.” Some saw them as “neighborhood invaders” who did not hire any African Americans to work in their stores. Korean storeowners were also distrustful of their Black customers, and with the struggle to operate family businesses, had little patience or willingness to develop relationships with customers or the community. Misunderstandings and prejudices on both sides created a volatile situation. Korean families believed they were targeted and attempted to defend their stores by themselves. They felt isolated and didn’t feel as though the police came to their aid either.
We have to look at the bigger picture to fully understand the racial dynamics and tensions at play. The racial tension in the LA riots is illustrative of the kinds of conflicts that arise in a more multiracial society, but one that is still structured by a system of racial power that privileges whites over nonwhites. In certain ways, Blacks and Koreans were played off of one another in a way that didn’t benefit either group. [4]
In the wake of the riots, some Korean Americans spoke out against the racial oppression that Koreans experienced in the US, being excluded from the mainstream economy and from equal protection under the law. They also saw their struggle as linked to a longer struggle for justice by African Americans in the civil rights movement and the larger protest movements of the 1960s-1970s. On May 11, 1992, a massive “Peace Rally” organized by Korean Americans was attended by 30,000 participants. Placards reading “Justice for Rodney King” and “More Jobs for the Inner-City” reflected a sense of common victimization that Koreans felt with the other communities of color in LA.
Other Korean Americans emerged as conservative activists, aligned more with the Republican Party, seeing the Korean community with its large segment of small entrepreneurs as one that could best pursue their political interests through the party which had championed fiscal conservatism and law and order.
Read more on LA since the riots here.
Gay and Lesbian Activism
During his 1992 campaign, Clinton promised to issue an executive order to remove the long-standing ban on gay men and women serving in the US military. He argued that “patriotic Americans should have the right to serve the country as members of the armed forces, without regard to sexual or affectional orientation.” The president’s proposal was met with hostility from conservatives who opposed any policy that legitimated or sanctioned homosexuality, and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who defended the ban as necessary to preserve discipline and morale in the armed forces.
In the end, Clinton compromised with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which allowed gays to serve in the military so long as they didn’t reveal their sexual orientation, engage in sexual conduct, or behave in any way that would indicate they were gay (such as reading gay magazines, frequenting gay bars, participating in parades or activism).
The issue that caught the most public attention in the 1990s was the right of same-sex couples to marry. The religious right mobilized in opposition to same-sex marriage, and used it as a “tipping point” for conservatives who had not yet joined their grassroots movement. Marriage was viewed as a cultural symbol as well as a religious institution. Allowing two men or two women to marry would supposedly “undermine” one of the nation’s most cherished institutions.
In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which limited the federal definition of marriage to “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” By 2004, thirty-nine states had passed similar legislation. Almost all of the 1996 Republican presidential candidates signed a pledge to defend marriage against the inclusion of same-sex couples.
In the 1990s, marriage was not on the list of top priorities for lesbian and gay activists. But, the conservative opposition to the issue mobilized activists to fight back for their right to marry. They were able to successfully use the courts to make progress, arguing that excluding citizens from marriage was unconstitutional. They found allies in a number of public officials and bureaucrats who granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the bans. [5]
In our consciousness, same-sex marriage has become quite a significant issue, culminating in the Supreme Court ruling on June 26 of 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow states to condemn same-sex couples to permanent second-class status solely because of sexual orientation.
Hate Crimes
The murder of Matthew Shepard, a college student at the University of Wyoming, also drastically impacted the gay rights movement in the 1990s. Shepard was beaten and tortured by two men on the night of October 6, 1998 and left to die tied to a wooden fence near Laramie, Wyoming. He died six days later, on October 12, from severe head injuries.
When the story hit the news, increasingly people called for the crime to be classified as a hate crime, which is defined as violence directed at another because that person belongs to a marginalized group. Shepard was openly gay in a very conservative area. His murderers were two roofers who had lured him out to a popular local bar, pretending to be gay.
His murder generated national attention towards the violence and discrimination faced by gay men and women, and started a campaign to have sexual orientation included in hate crimes legislation. In October 2009, the US Congress passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
National Immigration Policies in the 1980s - 1990s
The 1965 Immigration Act instituted a massive change in the countries of origin of most new immigrants to the United States. Between 1965 and 2000, nearly 24 million immigrants entered the US. About 50 percent came from Latin America and the Caribbean, 35 percent from Asia, and smaller numbers from the Middle East and Africa. Only 10 percent arrived from Europe.
Included in the new immigrant population were poor refugees from places of economic and political crisis (examples include countries in Central America, Haiti, and Cambodia). Also included were well-educated professionals from countries like India and South Korea, looking for skilled jobs. In the year 2000, more than 40 percent immigrants to the US had a college education.
In addition, for the first time in US history, women made up the majority of new immigrants, reflecting the decline of manufacturing jobs that had previously absorbed immigrant men, and the spread of employment opportunities in traditional female fields like child care, elder care, and retail sales.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the implementation of key policy initiatives designed to combat the problem of illegal or unauthorized immigration. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) introduced the use of employer sanctions to discourage illegal immigration. This was a new approach to the problem, as until the passage of IRCA, American businesses had been exempted from punishment for having undocumented employees.
In addition, IRCA legalized the population of undocumented immigrants who could prove that they had been residing and working in the US since 1981. Legalization would endow its recipients with the right to work and live in the US and eventually apply for citizenship, as well as covering them with labor protections and remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants as a way to dodge regulations. In addition to these components, IRCA also provided additional resources for the INS and Border Patrol, increasing its operating budget by 50 percent.
However, most of the increased budget went to the Border Patrol and to legalization, and not to employer sanctions (which were designed with the expectation that employers would regulate themselves and only repeat offenders would face serious fines). In addition, though legalization allowed millions of undocumented immigrants to improve their day-to-day lives, it ultimately did not work as a way of reducing illegal immigration.
Shortly after the passage of the 1996 welfare reform act, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). The language used in the title of the bill is quite revealing, and it is undergirded by many of the same ideologies as the welfare reform act, with its emphasis on personal responsibility. The IIRAIRA is based on a renewed emphasis on old restrictions which barred immigrants “likely to become a public charge.” It was undergirded by two theories that would supposedly deter illegal immigration: border deterrence and restriction of welfare.
The act increased Border Patrol agents and barriers (fences), and expanded INS detention space. It required families sponsoring immigrants to show proof that they could support them at 125 percent of the national poverty level (revealing fears that immigrants would take more than their fair share of benefits in the United States). It also determined that persons unlawfully in the US were not eligible for Social Security benefits, or post-secondary education benefits, and called for the transition of ineligible immigrants out of public housing.
IIRAIRA represented an extension of conservative viewpoints that assume that federal policies reward “undeserving” poor at taxpayer expense. The same sorts of argument we saw against providing welfare to single mothers was applied towards immigrants.
Part III: Debates Over Multiculturalism
Despite the manifestations of racial tensions in the LA Riots and anti-immigrant sentiment that spread through the 1990s, overall, public opinion polls revealed a growth of tolerance in the US in the last decade of the twentieth century. For example, in 1987, 45 percent of Americans accepted interracial dating without objection, and in 2003, the number had risen to 78 percent. Those who believed gays should be automatically fired from teaching jobs fell from 50 percent to 35 percent over the same period.
Multiculturalism, or the idea of an inclusive and diverse society, where all cultural groups deserve acceptance as well as scholarly interest, was celebrated by some in the 1990s. Others viewed it as cultural fragmentation.
In 2000, the Republican Party Platform reflected both of these ideologies. For example, it reads:
“Our country’s ethnic diversity within a shared national culture is unique in all the world.”
Conservatism is represented as a multicultural rather than exclusionary ideology. The platform also asserts that,
“we are the party that ended slavery, granted homesteads, built land grant colleges,”
calling attention to gains African Americans had achieved under the Republican party of the 19th century. owever, the platform also reads,
“We benefit from our differences, but we must also strengthen the ties that bind us to one another.”
It goes on to proclaim support for a constitutional amendment against flag burning, and the recognition of English as the nation’s common language, as well as immigration reform.
This tension between celebrating diversity on one hand and reiterating the common ties that unite Americans on the other is present throughout the “Culture Wars” of the 1990s.
The “Culture Wars” were battles over moral values—key points of contention we’ve already examined include abortion and gay rights. The “culture wars” also encompass critiques over multiculturalism and the tension between those who celebrated a changing American landscape (marked by immigration and more visibility of people of color and women), and those who saw these changes as a threat to tradition, and a decline in family values. The next few examples consider multiculturalism debates in education.
Rainbow Curriculum
In the early 1990s, the New York City public school system introduced a series of short texts geared towards first graders that came to be known as the “Children of the Rainbow,” designed to teach children acceptance of a wide range of people. It included lessons on the artifacts, folk songs, and holidays of diverse cultures, as well as a discussion of tolerance toward lesbian and gay families. It was the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Rainbow Curriculum that caused the most controversy among parents and politicians.
The curriculum included two books on lesbian and gay people, including titles like Heather Has Two Mommies, and became the target of a conservative campaign. Critics argued that public schools were teaching immorality, and that including homosexuality in a discussion of diversity would be dangerous for children. Protestors outside City Hall held placards that read, “Don’t Teach Our Children to Be Gay,” and “Teach Us to Pray, not to be Gay.”
Others argued that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be included in a curriculum that explores diversity in “culture,” because lesbians and gay men supposedly lived an “aberrant” lifestyle rather than constituting a legitimate cultural identity. Critics argued that only racial/ethnic groups have “culture,” while gay men and lesbians are just individuals. In this construction, the needs of racial and ethnic groups were pitted against the needs of gays and lesbians. [6]
Ultimately, the Rainbow Curriculum was shelved because it caused such an uproar. In many ways, the fears and frustration coming out of the protest movement of the Rainbow Curriculum were reflective of a larger national debate about the dangers of including a discussion of sex in the classroom. The worry was that even a discussion of homosexuality would lead to molestation and deviant sex.
To be clear: the Rainbow Curriculum, geared towards first-graders, made no reference to sex!
Poll #5:
In your opinion, does “multiculturalism” represent a demand for a more diverse group of people to be included in the existing definition of what it means to be American? Or, is this a fundamental change to the definition of “American”? Answer in the embedded poll below, or access it here.
History Wars - Textbooks
In 1986, the National Endowment for the Humanities funded various research centers to develop national standards for specific disciplines. The standards for history were developed by historians at UCLA, in consultation with teachers, educational administrators, and scholars. They produced their results in 1994.
The new history standards were rooted in the idea that history is not a fixed account of important facts identified by experts, but a continuing process of discovery, in which all citizens should expect to find their ancestors portrayed as historical protagonists. This reflected the larger understanding by professional historians that historical research is part of an ongoing debate.
Conversely, for the most part, many in the media, politics, and the public tend to view historical facts as representative of a self-evident, unambiguous truth.
The new history standards reflected the experiences of previously marginalized historical groups, as well as a discussion of power dynamics and relationships in the United States. The traditional focus on elite white men’s history was dismantled a bit, as the standards expanded the understanding of who was important enough to be included in the history classroom. [7]
Lynne Cheney, a former director of the National Endowment for the Humanities (and wife of Dick Cheney, vice president under George W. Bush), wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 called “The End of History,” which spelled out some of the critiques of the new standards.
Cheney writes,
“Imagine an outline for the teaching of American history in which George Washington makes only a fleeting appearance and is never described as our first president. Or in which the founding of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are considered noteworthy events, but the first gathering of the US Congress is not.”
She continues,
“What went wrong? One member of the National Council for History Standards (the group that oversaw the drafting of the standards) says that the 1992 presidential election unleashed the forces of political correctness. According to this person, who wishes not to be named, those who were ‘pursuing the revisionist agenda’ no longer bothered to conceal their ‘great hatred for traditional history.’ Various political groups, such as African-American organizations and Native American groups, also complained about what they saw as omissions and distortions. As a result, says the council member, ‘nobody dared to cut the inclusive part,’ and what got left out was traditional history.”
Cheney ended her article with this ominous statement: “We are a better people than the National Standards indicate, and our children deserve to know it.”
Was Cheney denying that American history was full of pain, or discrimination, or a diverse array of experiences? It doesn’t seem to be so—she was reacting to the supposed “obfuscation” of what made America great by focusing on a more critical view of the American past. But, by posing certain political organizations, such as “African American organizations and Native American groups” as the “enemies” of traditional history, she is in fact asserting that their history is just a nod to “political correctness” and serves to mask the “real” American history.
The history wars aren’t over! In fact, Cheney wrote another op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April 2015 called “The End of History Part II.” In it, she finds fault with the new AP US History exam. She critiques the exam’s overwhelming “focus on the negative.” She writes,
“On the multiple choice part of the sample exam, there are 18 sections, and eight of them take up the oppression of women, blacks and immigrants. Knowing about the experiences of these groups is important—but truth requires that accomplishment be recognized as well as oppression, and the exam doesn’t have questions on subjects such as the transforming leadership of Martin Luther King Jr.”
Almost twenty years after publishing her first op-ed, Cheney raises the same critiques. Her—and others’—main concerns include too much oppression and not enough inspirational individuals. Cheney’s opinions lead us to larger questions about the purpose of history as a whole. Is history supposed to inspire? Does recognizing the presence of oppression in history have to be viewed as negative?
(The same kinds of debates were raised yet again this summer with conservative backlash over the New York Times' 1619 Project.)
History Wars - Enola Gay Exhibit
The “Culture Wars” in the 1990s extended to the ways in which Americans thought about and remembered the past in public history settings. For example, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum exhibit on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, caused quite a bit of controversy.
One of the historian advisors on the exhibit, Martin Sherwin, had criticisms of the way that the exhibit turned out. He argued that the exhibit was dominantly “commemorative” and not as historically situated and contextualized. He wanted to include more of a nuanced view of the reasons behind dropping the atomic bomb on Japan during WWII. (For more on the historical context of the Enola Gay, check out Hamza's I-Search paper post!)
While other historians defended the exhibit’s script, it actually came under fire for the opposite reason. The editor of Air Force Magazine, John Correll, claimed that it was biased against the Air Force, pro-Japanese, and anti-American. He charged that the exhibit did not contain enough commemoration of the veterans who had fought in WWII, and did not pay enough attention to the brutality of the Japanese during the war.
A broad spectrum of veterans’ groups, led by the American Legion, enlisted senators and congressmen to condemn the exhibit. The critics threatened retribution against the staff and the museum if the exhibit was not adjusted. Seven congressmen wrote to the secretary of the Smithsonian: “There is no excuse for an exhibit which addresses one of the most morally unambiguous events of the 20th century to need five revisions.” Critics demanded more coverage of Japan’s invasion of China in the 1930s (which was arguably reasonable, but would change the focus of the exhibit which was centered around the Cold War), and the removal of all documents critical of the use of the atomic bomb. [8]
The Smithsonian canceled the exhibit. The controversy reveals the extent to which the memory of World War II as the “Good War,” a just, righteous, and moral crusade has affected the way our historical narrative of the war is constructed.
Questioning the US’ actions in the war, or simply acknowledging them as controversial, seemed to undermine the national rhetoric and vision of morality we have come to associate with WWII.
September 11, 2001
The broader “culture wars” of the 1990s reveal tension and conflict among Americans on issues of individual responsibility, morality, and the definition of what exactly was “American,” in an age of multiculturalism. After September 11, 2001, things changed. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City produced a cultural shift. Responses to the attacks ranged from shock, confusion, fear, anger, and revenge. But in addition, there was a powerful theme that emerged: the attacks had brought Americans together. In the weeks after 9/11, American flags sprouted up everywhere, a visual display of civic-mindedness and a sense of community.
Americans had a new sense of patriotic duty, as articulated by George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: “We have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self…We were reminded that we are citizens with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history.”
However, this sense of cultural unity and patriotism masked other underlying issues. Anti-Muslim sentiment and rage surged through the media, as the new “cultural unity” created an “us vs. them” mentality, where anyone with a Muslim-sounding name became a suspect.
A new “war on terrorism” was conducted both overseas and at home, as the nation issued orange- and red-coded terror alerts, and authorities urged Americans to monitor each other’s activities, cautioning, “If you see something, say something.”
President Bush spoke of the “war on terrorism” as having no middle ground: “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” The former president of the American Historical Association, Joyce Appleby, remarked, “It looks as though we’re moving right back into the cold-war mindset.”
In addition, culture wars resurfaced. Some conservatives worried that the declining belief in moral standards had “weakened the nation’s defenses.” It remains to be seen as to whether or not the US has “outgrown” these tensions and divides.
Poll #6:
It's the last poll of the semester! 😭🥳
I would like you to reflect how the main themes of this module intersect with some of the key political and cultural debates of the last decade, the 2010s. In our current moment, we are revisiting many of these conversations, at times with different results. In your opinion, which of the following topics which came under fire in the 1990s represent the most significant topic the US has engaged with over the 2010s?
Immigration
Sexual harassment
Police brutality/racial discrimination
LGBTQ+ rights
Welfare and poverty
(You can choose more than one for this poll. My gift to you!) Answer in the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Conclusion:
Throughout the 1990s, citizenship was repeatedly constructed using the language of personal responsibility and individual merits, as well as questions about the extent to which the federal government should be involved in people’s lives.
An increase in immigration and an increasingly multicultural society lead to tensions over how diverse groups would be included in the American landscape. Some celebrated multiculturalism, while others asserted that it lead to further cultural fragmentation.
At stake in the “culture wars” of the 1990s were larger issues about American identity, rooted in understandings of history and memory that were often conflicted and contested.
Citations:
[1] Haynes Johnson, Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years (New York; London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991), 360.
[2] Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits: Reagan, Gorbachev, and Bush. Conversations That Ended the Cold War (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2016), 378.
[3] Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage Books, 2017), 205.
[4] For more on the relationships and conflict between Korean storeowners and African Americans see Claire Jean Kim, Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000).
[5] Tina Fetner, How the Religious Right Shaped Lesbian and Gay Activism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 110.
[6] Fetner, How the Religious Right Shaped Lesbian and Gay Activism, 103.
[7] See Daniel Rodgers, Age of Fracture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 228.
[8] See Martin J. Sherwin, “Hiroshima as Politics and History” The Journal of American History 82 no. 3 (December 1995): 1085-1093.
In your opinion, in 2020, as a whole, has the United States “kicked” the “Vietnam syndrome”?
In my opinion I don't believe the United States has strayed from the "Vietnam syndrome" because America is still highly involved in foreign affairs and international expansionism. I think this is represented by the ongoing war in the Middle East as of modern day as well as, an emphasis on immigration control instead of intrinsic control within America.
In your opinion, does “multiculturalism” represent a demand for a more diverse group of people to be included in the existing definition of what it means to be American? Or, is this a fundamental change to the definition of “American”?
I chose "multiculturalism" because it does represent a demand for a more diverse group of people to be seen as Americans because there were some effort and gradual acceptance of interracial dating among the Americans, and this number went up significantly as of 1990. Therefore, the term "multiculturalism" represents the people of different races desiring to be seen as "American."
In your opinion, which of the following topics which came under fire in the 1990s represent the most significant topics the US has engaged with over the 2010s?
I would say for this it would be Police brutality/racial discrimination on how many people of different origin and race are looked at differently compared to those who are not.
On topics of multiculturalism, I tend to see different perspectives. In some aspects, it is the forcing of accepting cultures and practices. WHere as another is the appreciation of the cultures that have come to be part of American Identity and history. I'm of the preference that we are different culturally and ethnically and can appreciate that we are different and respect each other as humans. Although there is strong aggression towards other people's ethnic or cultural backgrounds depending on the hot political of the current era. From Immigration of south Americans, and war-torn countries in the middle east, and Africa. The willingness to have empathy and appreciate others is torn down with political propaganda and or fear-mongering. Even today,…
In your opinion, which of the following topics which came under fire in the 1990s represent the most significant topics the US has engaged with over the 2010s?
I would say Police brutality/racial discrimination, LGBTQ+ rights, and welfare and poverty are the most significant topics in the US because we are still facing them in today's world and it was way worse back then.