No, Liberal Historians Can’t Tame Nationalism
Historians should reject nationalism and help readers to avoid its dangers.
The Future is Another Country
Historians should reject nationalism and help readers to avoid its dangers.
While Democrats are, at best, a corporate-dominated center-left party with a history of attacking its left flank, they represent the only viable alternative to the far right Republican agenda. Supporting Democrats, given the alternative, is important. After all, Democrats are the only other political party with real power in a system designed to accommodate the existence of only two parties.
We are too used to worshiping rich people in our country.
Roediger asks us as readers to consider what privilege means in an era where everyone is struggling.
As we occupy a world of increasing plenty, we must concede that the way we distribute resources is a choice. We choose to let our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico starve. That is our collective failure, not theirs.
Few today would be surprised that the harshest repression following the confrontation in Greenville was not against the right-wing paramilitary organization but against members of the IWW.
Top-down responses to food insecurity must be paired with strategies creating self-sustaining local food economies that lessen dependency on the ebbs and flows of the modern corporately controlled food system.
The social safety-net afforded white, middle class boomers access to relative comfort. However, by middle and old age, boomers began supporting hard right-wing politicians such as Ronald Reagan, who made it their goal to destroy the welfare system that had bolstered them to middle-class status.
Underserving of merit in any other way, Donald Trump’s overweening emphasis on his financial success is an effective way to establish social dominance and gain power from individuals who consider wealth the ultimate “accomplishment.”
This is what we often overlook when we write about work: people exist beyond of systems of labor and exploitation.