Something on monument avenue that does not reflect that segregationist past. The result was this arthur ashe statue, which is pretty big. Not as big as jeff davis, but its pretty big. Its pretty large. So moving away from virginia, though, im sort of curious yeah, matt . In doing a paper, i actually came across an article that was in the southern southeastern geographer, and the article explored the symbolic meaning of lee to the city. This is about richmond. It is now mostly africanamerican. And the argument was that, i guess they had redone the canal area. Theres this big mural of robert e. Lee there. And its like the africanamerican population demanded that it be taken down. And so it does seem like there is a real expression of political power in that city now. Well, its an interesting place. It does come up. If you go, i also highly recommend the museum of the confederacy. Its a fascinating place in its own right. Its bookstore is fascinating. It is not you might imagine being up here in new england, you might imagine it is completely going to be committed to the lost cause memory, but its not. Whats interesting about it is Jefferson Davis white house is what its called and the museum of the confederacy are smack dab in the middle of a massive hospital complex. So if you go to it, you have a largely africanamerican city. You have a very diverse population. As you walk to it. And then when you get to the museum of the confederacy, suddenly everyone around you is white, and older. Its a very clear demographic shift. But its just interesting, again, for to equate it, or to look at it from connecticuts point of view. Yes. I forget where it was, but the piquaut, i think stonington had this big monument to the victory over the piquauts. And now theyre a very powerful force in connecticut politics. And i believe they had they were able to muster enough Political Support to get that monument taken down. I dont know about that one. But a point of the fact as groups start to exert certain political power, theyre able to change the narrative, and change the memory of any particular given event. Its certainly about power. Sometimes its raw political power. Across the board. But sometimes its also the power of the changing narrative. Which you sort of hope historians are part of. We dont want to be immodest, because we noticed, speaking on behalf of professional historians, we notice a lot of people pay no attention to what we have to say. We have noticed this. I think scholarship does move things ever so slightly. It is probably also the case that we are looking for narratives that fit better who we are today. And that may mean taking some monuments down. It may mean rethinking them. I think i mentioned in this class, the classes start to blur, that for many, many years new orleans had a series of schools named for John Mcdonough who gave a fabulous fortune to the city of new orleans in the 19th century. He gave the money to be used on to be used for schooling. Quote, without regard for cast or color. New orleans got half the money, baltimore got the other half. I believe there are no longer John Mcdonough schools in new orleans, because the name was synonymous with segregation. Theres a decent sized John Mcdonough statue, though. So i went looking. I went looking for kind of more memory. And i have to say that its actually very, very hard to look for civil war commemoration memories in new england outside of connecticut. Its a little even as somebody from a border state, its the civil war is less visible, its less present. Like i said, you grew up near robert e. Lee park, you cant not know something, right . But in new england, its very, very different. The narrative here is all about abolition. The whole notion of the civil war being a war to free the slaves, thats got a lot to do with new englands abolitionists memory of itself. I went looking. My first hit was fascinating to me. And i will share. April, 1864, a battle at Poison Springs in arkansas. And these two plaques are old plaques that commemorate a confederate victory over union troops. Now, it is an interesting battle, because there was a reenactment two weeks ago, and i wish i was there, because i have a question. Poison springs was a fairly minor skirmish in the grand scheme of things. But what happened after Poison Springs, the picture may not show this, but the battle was between confederate troops and the first kansas colored infantry. Okay . And after the battle, both union and confederate accounts demonstrate that confederate soldiers murdered surviving black soldiers. All right . Like ft. Pillow, smaller scale. It fascinates me to no end that washington county, arkansas, reenacted the battle. Created a group of africanamerican created a reenactment of the first kansas colored to reenact the battle. The question is, what did they do at the end of the battle . And i am curious. The one of the folks involved in the reenactment is a state official. Im going to write him and ask. But even without knowing that, even without knowing what they did with the massacre, it tells us something, i think, about the public narrative that you can go to washatau county and have a reenact of a battle between white troops and black troops. That is put on by the local historical society, enchampioned on the states civil war commemoration commission. One or two more pictures of the battle. Heres my last thing. So i wanted to talk together about what we think will happen with the civil war bicentennial. We should keep it fairly brief because were running out of time. Heres what i think is going to happen. At least a start. I think one of the Big Questions is going to be diversity. Because i think we can see that the narrative has changed. At some level. All right . We all generally accepted that emancipation, and the disintegration of slavery driven by africanamericans themselves changes the nature of the war, changes the nature of the conflict. At a professional level, i think those things are not going to change much. Whether or not the public narrative moves further, or private narrative moves further is open to question. What happens in the bicentennial . I dont know. But i think it will be shaped by two things. One is the changing diversity of the country. Because it is already the case that huge numbers of americans have no familial tie, even distantly, to the civil war. And the other is, im not sure that the political lessons of the civil war will translate as well in 50 years. But im not sure. But lets open it up to you guys. What do you think it will look like in 50 years . 2fj รท . 7 i will have nothing to do with it. I dont want to make it all political in a powerful thing that is not memory, but as the demographics of the country change, i think the memory is going to shift. I think what year, but it will be long before the 200th anniversary. Youre going to have where the white is not going to be a clear majority in this country. I think that will probably affect how the memory of the war is portrayed. John . To go on that, i think the reconciliation thing is going to be very much absent, or very much less stated because of the growing diversity. You see the changing demographics in areas where the lost cause are the strongest, and places like that. Theres going to be less of that divide between north and south as you see immigration and other factors go into it. Im going to be fascinated to see what happens in new england. Because ive talked a lot about the south. But im actually2ni not sure w civil war memory is going to look like in new england, because i think it already is not that visible. If it wasnt for a very active state level commemoration commission, im not sure what they would be doing in connecticut right now. Connecticut strikes me as being the new england state thats doing a lot. But will there be a bicentennial commission . What will it do . How many of the sites that we talk about will be gone . Even now, we talk about the battlefields that are disappearing. It will be interesting if we have kind of more of an emancipationist memory. It will raise some interesting questions. We talk all about the anniversaries of the civil war. But we never talk about the anniversary of reconstruction. So i think theres still a limit, right . And it may be the case that we have crossed sort of crossed a rubicon with slavery. That doesnt mean weve dealt with racism. It doesnt mean weve dealt with that part. If we were to commemorate reconstruction, i dont know where we would do it or how. But i know it would be a lot more uncomfortable than recreating the battle at Poison Springs. Overall. Any questions . John . Yeah . I think to approach reconstruction in the future, you might have to look at the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and say this is a long lesson. It might be that the civil rights commemoration might be more important of the 200th, it may be bigger than the 200th of the civil war. That would be interesting. Jamie . I think at the federal level, slow recognition of the i think they put up a portrait of the rebel also in the capital, i want to say. There is sort of, as much as the public understands reconstruction, its very messy. Thats going to be up there forever. And its sort of its 150 years late, but an attempt to say this happened. And this is what it was. Yeah. Right. Austin . Im going to go to the dark end. Maybe in about 50 years time, the country, or, you know, the nation will be more willing to talk about the negative side, like reconstruction, which is which is pretty a bleak period of history. Just a case in point, with my paper for your class, about the little bighorn, i learned more about the western history as a whole. And its changed the narrative to incorporate more of the native american side. And the nasty aspects of western expansion, i believe, they now have like the sites are a memorial to the sand creek massacre, or the washia, which is one of custers battles against the indians, which was you can argue was a slaughter, or massacre. But its just a more open it was brought to the public light and not shunned away for the turner thesis, so to speak. Thats the way i see it. I think i will be pushing up daisies, so i dont think i will know. But anyway, thats all for this evening. I have one quick announcement. That is, papers due one week from today, unless youre also in dr. Jones class, where youre doing the double paper. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Youve been watching American History tvs lectures in history series. You can watch other lectures every saturday evening at 8 00 p. M. And 12 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan3. President obama travels to North Carolina tuesday to speak at the american legions 96th annual National Convention in charlotte. Well have his remarks live at around noon eastern on cspan. Later in the day, live coverage from the Wilson Center in washington, d. C. , for a discussion on the future of the european union. The European Parliament secretarygeneral will be among the speakers. That gets under wap at 3 30 p. M. Eastern. With live coverage of the u. S. House on cspan, and the senate on cspan2, here on cspan3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and Public Affairs events. And then on weekends, cspan3 is the home to American History tv, with programs that tell our nations story, including six unique series, the civil wars 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. American artifacts, touring museums and Historic Sites to discover what historic facts reveal about americas past. History bookshelf with the best known American History writers. The presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nations commanders in chief. Lectures in history with top College Professors delving into americas past. And archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. Cspan3, created by the cable tv industry, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. Now to oregon state university, for a lecture on the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, and the antipoverty efforts of president lyndon johnson. The class is led by history professor marisa chappell. This is 1 hour 45 minutes. So, today were talking about the war on poverty, and the urban crisis in the late 1960s in the United States. And were looking at the ways in which the black Freedom Movement raised the issues of poverty, and of racial disadvantage. Really to a level of national attention, and National Action that we havent really seen at any time since. So i want to start just by well, first i should lead you through the outline quickly. Well talk about the ways in which americans at the time thought about black poverty. How did they interpret it. What causes did they think about. And then, what solutions, therefore, did they turn to. So well talk about designing a war on poverty. The choices that the federal government made when the Johnson Administration announced that it was going to wage a war on poverty. And then well talk a little bit about the socalled riots that occurred each summer in the late 1960s in africanamerican communities. In cities. And the ways in which discussions about those really reflected different attitudes about racial disadvantage. And then finally, well discuss imagining alternatives. So some of the ways in which activists offered their own ideas about what might help overcome racial disadvantage and poverty. And i have here a quote from a. Phillip randolph, freedom from oppression, freedom from political oppression. Weve seen this throughout, right, that economic demands. Demands for Economic Opportunity and Economic Security have been really important to the black freedom struggle, and so were going to see them kind of reappear here in significant form. So let me show you a couple of slides. These are statistics from the census. And here we have a comparison of white and black poverty in 1959 and 1968. Not a hard graph to interpret. What do you see . Cara . In 1968, poverty had declined a lot. But still black poverty is a lot higher than white poverty. And its still probably like that today. So there was change, but it wasnt theyre not equal. Yes. So we see progress for both groups over this time. But as you say, we continue to see a disparity. Any other comments on this graph . All right. I want to show you a little more detail here. And i want you to tell me what you see in this graph. Pedro . So, for you can tell with gender, theres a disparity where the poverty is, even among races. But with black females, theyre among the most highest. Well, actually yeah, among the most highest. They actually did decline slowly, but you can see even within race, theres also intersections within sex. So it sort of gives you a slight look at gender and how it intersects. The combined effects of race and gender on shaping Economic Opportunity and economic outcome, right . And i dont know if this is startling to you, but 1968, you can see still over 50 these are household headed by. So over 50 of households headed by africanamerican women were in poverty, or officially under the federal poverty line. Pauline . Why is it that black women are more in poverty than any other, like, race or gender . Thats a really great question. Lets talk about it. What do you think . Ashley . I think that its a combination of probably well, probably lack of being able to find employment, being both a person of color and also a woman. So as you can see, like the white female in 1968 is on par with the black male. Its like a double whammy of discrimination. Discrimination in the labor market. Lack of access to wellpaying jobs, both by sex and by race. And access to child care. A really good point. Womens role in raising children, and the time and resources that that takes. Other thoughts . Cara . Well, also the time period is the same time that a lot of our articles were talking about. So if it was like a single black woman, probably in poverty trying to raise a family, they were cut they werent allowen aid to help raise their families. Thats whats talked about in the articles that we read about, the struggle for them to receive government aid and the discrimination that they faced. Net. Well talk a little bit more about that, review that in a few minutes. But remember, the social safety net was segmented. By race and by gender. I think to touch on what they both said, i think it was also like, it was cheaper for the access to child care, for women of color. It was like basically, youre not working youre working to pay for child care rather than just having money to, you know, cover your household. Most of it was going to child care. And not enough was going to the actual household. For women who even had access to paid child care, right . Black women were typically doing the paid child care for white women. We didnt have a proliferation of Child Care Centers at the time. A lot of this had to be informal through kinship. Difficult to arrange, absolutely. Any other thoughts on this intersection of race and gender in terms of creating poverty . Okay. So, i want you to keep these graphs in mind as we talk today. Lets turn to the ways in which americans in the 1960s framed the problem of black poverty. Americans were talking about poverty more broadly in the early 1960s. But because as weve seen, we have this Mass Movement among africanamericans. Its making black poverty particularly visible. And we also see africanamericans in cities really challenging the economic manifestations of racism, right . So this is very much in the public eye. So lets look at daniel moynahan. So moynahan is a social scientist. He is a racial liberal. Think back to our discussion of racial liberalism. He is secretary of labor in the Johnson Administration. Hes a key policy maker among the federal officials who are determining what the federal governments response would be to poverty. And you read a short excerpt from a report he wrote called the negro fam