American Political Theory

Ballot or the Bullet/Unspeakable Conversations

Listen to (or read) Malcolm X here.

Here is a link to Harriet McBryde Johnson's essay.

posted by djw @ 2:23 PM 2 comments

Some third paper ideas

Some of you have requested some suggestions on a third paper topic. You're free to choose your own, of course, but I thought I'd give you a few ideas.

First, you could do the second topic on either of the first two papers if you wish.

Here are some other ideas. These are just ideas--feel free to tweak them or change them around or whatever; this paper can be on whatever you wish:

Jefferson is sometimes described as a "strict constructionist" in his constitutional interpretation. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Compare and contrast Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience with Locke's theory of revolution.

George Fitzhugh criticizes Northern "white slavery" using a Marxist form of analysis, but later vigorously criticizes socialism. Why does he do this? What is the basis of his defense of slavery? Even though we have little use for his defense of slavery as an institution, is there any merit to any aspect of his theory? Explain.

Was Elizabeth Cady Stanton correct that women's suffrage advocates shouldn't support the 15th Amendment without explicit inclusion of women, or was Lucy Stone correct that women's suffrage advocates should support such it on it's own merits? Consider the arguments for both sides.

Compare and contrast Douglass and Thoreau's conceptions of political responsibility. Which is more satisfying? Which is more firmly rooted in the American political tradition.

posted by djw @ 6:52 PM 0 comments

Reading

On the age of Jackson, Class A for 2 August, we'll be reading selections from Rogers Smith's book Civic Ideals, a history of Citizenship Law in early America. This is available on e-reserve. It is a bit long, and posted in three sections, titled "The Hidden History of Citizenship Laws", "High Noon in the White Republic (Part I)" and High Noon in the White Republic (Part II)."

Go here for e-reserve, and search for "Watkins" under instructor.

posted by djw @ 11:55 AM 0 comments

Kant, general discussion

In class today (7/26) I'll be briefly discussing a short essay by Immanuel Kant called "What is Enlightenment?" Those who took my European Political Theory class (and didn't sell back the book!) can find it in there, others can find it online here.

(note that it's not required reading, but it's very good and readable and short, so if the topic interests you, follow the link)

If you'd like to start a discussion or pose a question on any issues related to Locke, Franklin, Paine, or the early constitutional documents of the US, feel free to do so here.

posted by djw @ 11:15 AM 0 comments

Lone Star

I hope you all enjoyed Lone Star. It's a favorite of mine, as are many of John Sayles' films (I especially recommend Matewan).

You may have been wondering why I included this film in this course. I thought I'd try to explain. Feel free to use this discussion thread to discuss any of these themes or any other aspects of this film.

Rio county, where the film takes place, can be understood as a microcosm for the challenge of the construction of a political community. Most early settlers in America came from Europe, and in particular European countries in which communities had grown into what they currently are for centuries. One of the great challenges of American political life was to construct a political community out of a number of different cultural and political communities who find themselves in close proximity to each other.

Of course, as with Rio county in Lone Star, these different communities didn't just suddenly find themselves living together--they came to be in the same place through a contentious , troubled history. That history--and the question of how to understand it and what to do about it--is one of the primary difficulties for moving forward as a community. (See, for example, the tensions at the history curriculum meeting early in the film). No one's quite willing to deny that great wrongs were commited in the construction of this community (it is telling that no Native Americans appear to be present at this meeting, and they may well have suffered the most significant and systematic harm of any group!)

The politics of simmering racial tension in it's post civil-rights era are on full display in this film, and what I'd like to emphasize about that is the complexity of it all. It's not black vs. white or privileged vs. underprivileged or anything that neat and simple. A theme of the film is the way in which racial groups are subject to internal tensions as well. Consider the encounters between a successful, disciplined, conservative black military officer and the private who tests positive for drug use, and the look of utter confusion on his face when she tells him "It's their country" (or, for that matter, consider the wide gap between the same military officer and his own father). These people have hardly anything in common with their view of what it means to be black in America. Or consider Mercedes "En Ingles, Enrique, En Ingles" Cruz. Her most important group identity, it seems, is her membership in the chamber of commerce. At the core of her identity is a conflict--her business needs and has always needed labor from undocumented immigrants, but she denies it and calls the Border Patrol at the first sign of stirrings on the Rio Grande.

Add into the mix Otis' mini-museum of the Black Seminole trackers (who went from fighting the US for their land in Florida to later joining the Army and hunting down Indians in their capacity as Army trackers) and we've got a remarkably complex racial picture. A theme that helps us make sense of this complexity is "re-invention." The black Seminoles were reinvented as an elite army group. Mercedes Cruz enters the country as an illegal immigrant herself, and later reinvents herself as a pillar of the local business community (having a long-term affair with the man who everyone mistakenly believed killed her young husband's murderer in the interim). Our protaganist is approaching 40 and still trying to figure out how to invent himself as someone distinct and different from his imposing father.

America was understood, even in it's early phase of constitutional contruction, as an invented community--intentionally so. This means, for many people, breaking the rules that governed communities and relationships in the past. That's why Sam and Pilar's discussion at the end of the movie is so important and in it's own weird way quintessentially American--they're contemplating a reinvention of the rules that represents a radical break from the past, to say the least.

I've got more to say, but I've got to go. Enjoy your weekend and let me know your thoughts on the movie or my comments in the thread below. Perhaps I'll post more on the film later, as well as Monday's readings.

posted by djw @ 4:30 PM 0 comments

Links to monday's readings

The URLs are in the syllabus, but here are direct links to the online readings for Monday:

The Levellers

Locke

Remember, w/ Locke, you need only read chapters 2, 5, 6 and 19 (section 219-229).

posted by djw @ 8:38 AM 0 comments

Welcome

Welcome to the course blog for American political theory, UW-Tacoma, Summer 2005. I'll use this space for discussions, announcements, assignments, handouts and the like. It will evolve in large part depending on how useful you as students find it.

Here is a link to the syllabus. I'll hand them out in class later today.

posted by djw @ 8:30 AM 0 comments