Lessons

This lesson is part of the following unit:
A Pivotal Moment in the Civil Rights Movement: The Murder of Emmett Till

A rich understanding of ourselves and history includes understanding why certain events carry special significance as "pivotal" moments-moments that change the direction of attitudes, customs, and actions. In this lesson, students begin to explore how Emmett Till's murder became a pivotal moment in civil rights history through understanding the choices made by individuals and groups and the consequences of those choices. This lesson also helps students think about the pivotal moments in their own lives and to consider the different ways people respond to violence and injustice today.

This lesson is part of the following unit:
A Pivotal Moment in the Civil Rights Movement: The Murder of Emmett Till

In this lesson, students will explore primary documents in order to learn more about the historical context of Emmett Till's murder. Studying about segregation, the rise of the media, the impact of World War II, and earlier civil rights activism will help students develop an awareness of how multiple factors combine to influence events. Many students have practiced drawing simple cause-effect relationships, and the activity in this lesson pushes them toward deeper historical analysis.

During April 2004, commemorations across the world marked the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsis and some Hutus were slaughtered in a bloody 100-day rampage. The commemorations were marked by solemn pledges from diplomats and human rights activists to never allow another "Rwanda." Yet, even as people remembered the failure to prevent slaughter in Rwanda, a steady stream of reports about deportations, massacres, and systematic sexual abuses in the Darfur region of Sudan were beginning to make news. On the influential Op-ed page of the New York Times, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, wrote a column entitled "Remember Rwanda, but Take Action in Sudan." After describing the situation on the ground, Power outlines three lessons from the Rwandan Genocide that she felt could guide responses to the crisis in Darfur.

The first is that those intent on wiping out an inconvenient minority have a habit of denying journalists and aid workers access and of pursuing bad-faith negotiations. Thus far the Sudanese government has pursued both approaches, and Western officials have been far too trusting of their assurances.

A second lesson is that outside powers cannot wait for confirmation of genocide before they act. In 1994, the Clinton administration spent more time maneuvering to avoid using the term "genocide" than it did using its resources to save lives. In May 1994, an internal Pentagon memo warned against using the term "genocide" because it could commit the United States "to actually do something." In the case of Sudan, American officials need not focus on whether the killings meet the definition of genocide set by the 1948 Genocide Convention; they should focus instead on trying to stop them.

A third lesson is that even when the United States decides not to respond militarily, American leadership is indispensable. This is especially true because Europe continues to avoid intervening in violent humanitarian crises. And it remains true despite the Bush administration's unpopularity abroad. The United States often takes an all-or-nothing approach: if it doesn't send troops, it tends to foreclose other policy options.1

As the horrible details from the crisis in Darfur became apparent, many individuals felt lost. They did not want to stand by and let genocide happen, but despite Samantha Power's warnings, the language used here mattered. Was what was happening in Darfur genocide? If it was genocide, what could individuals and groups do about it? The Internet now made it possible for people to send letters to lobby government officials to take action with a few clicks of a mouse, but what should they say? Was there a way to help the victims that didn't require trying to move the often-slow bureaucracies of national governments and the United Nations?

Scholars of genocide and human rights have noted that from the Armenian Genocide in 1915 through the present, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been much better at providing humanitarian assistance - food and shelter to victims - than finding a way to stop the abuses. At times, efforts to feed and shelter the victims have come into conflict with those who have advocated military intervention aimed at stopping further abuses. As the situation for Armenians in the Ottoman Empire deteriorated, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt highlighted the dilemma for those who want to help victims of genocide when he argued:

Mass meetings on behalf of Armenians amount to nothing whatever if they are mere methods of giving a sentimental but ineffective and safe outlet for those engaged in them...Until we put honor and duty first, and are willing to risk something in order to achieve righteousness both for ourselves and others, we shall accomplish nothing; and we shall earn and deserve the contempt of the strong nations of mankind.2"

Roosevelt was advocating for military intervention; others believe that use of military force should be the last option. That said, most people cannot identify other concrete actions. Without a clear sense of what to do and where to intervene, all of us risk becoming bystanders. Power explains that, "All systems tend to shut down in the face of genocide ...it's almost as though the worse the crime, the more likely we are to say, ‘Ugh, who can even begin to go there.'"3 She suggests one way to begin to think about making a difference is to imagine a toolbox with each tool representing a different kind of intervention including condemnation, economic sanctions, freezing the bank accounts of the leaders of the genocide, and military intervention. Power notes that:

Most people that participate in genocide have never killed before, ever. They're people who live normal family lives, they don't steal their neighbor's cows, they don't even necessarily try to pick up their neighbor's wives. They're living normal lives - they have moral compasses. And every day, while the frenzy envelops their societies- and usually with top-down sophistication, manipulation-they're deciding how far they want to go.4

After months of building pressure from individuals, governments, and human rights activists and organizations on July 30, 2004, the Security Council of the United Nations passed a resolution threatening action against the Sudanese Government if they failed to disarm the militias who were carrying out the genocide and restore security to the region of Darfur. The 30-day deadline passed without action.

Connections

Spanish philosopher George Santayana commented that, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What was Santayana suggesting? How can studying history - including studying moments in which individuals, groups, and nations behaved less than honorably - inform our actions in the present? How does Samantha Power believe understanding the failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda can inform our response to genocide today?

Some human rights advocates argue that military intervention or declaring war on the perpetrators of genocide is the best way to protect the victims from systematic governmental abuse. Others, equally committed to protecting the lives of the innocent, believe that war will only increase the numbers of innocent victims. What other options can you think of to be added to a toolbox for dealing with genocide?

This reading talked about bystanders. How do you define the word bystander? Ervin Staub, a psychologist and the author of The Psychology of Good and Evil believes that bystanders play a far more critical role in society than people realize.

Bystanders, people who witness but are not directly affected by the actions of perpetrators, help shape society by their reactions...

Bystanders can exert powerful influences. They can define the meaning of events and move others toward empathy or indifference. They can promote the values and norms of caring, or by their passivity of participation in the system, they can affirm the perpetrators.5

Why do you think people become bystanders? In your journal, reflect on a time when you were witness to a situation that you felt was unjust but did not take action. Describe the situation and consider what kept you from taking action. What do you think would have needed to happen for you to act? Consider sharing your story with other students in your class. What do the stories have in common? What lessons do you take away from hearing the various stories?

In a talk for Facing History and Ourselves, Samantha Power discussed the way individuals, groups, and nations respond to genocide. To see video clips of the talk and to read excerpts of the transcript visit www.facinghistory.org/power. After viewing the clips, consider what factors Power believes influence the way people respond to genocide.

One of Power's major contributions to the study of human rights is her idea of a toolbox with a range of possible responses to genocide and human rights abuses. After watching the clips discuss how she believes the toolbox can be used to influences the choices made by perpetrators of genocide. What does she include in her toolbox? Consider what tools are available to ordinary people?

Holocaust and Genocide scholar Michael Berenbaum writes that after the Holocaust politicians were able to say that they did not know what was happening. With regard to the genocide in the Sudan, he says, "we know and we see." The question, for him, is about political will. Is there a political will to do something to stop the genocide? And, how much will political acts reflect moral values? In a democracy people have the power to advocate for a cause and therefore help create the climate to influence the political will of politicians. What would you say to world leaders about the events in the Sudan?

This reading is about responding to genocide. What do we need to do in order to recognize what genocide scholar Helen Fein calls "warning signs," in order to prevent the loss of human life?

1 Excerpted from "Remember Rwanda, but Take Action in Sudan," by Samantha Power, The New York Times, April 6, 2001, Op-ed.
2 Facing History and Ourselves, Crimes Against Humanity and Civilization: The Genocide of the Armenians, 129.
3 Samantha Power speaking in Chicago, Illinois, February 2003.
4 Ibid.
5 Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence, (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 86-87.

For additional background on the genocide in Darfur, please visit:

• "Sudan's Reign of Terror" by Eric Reeves, Amnesty Now, Summer 2004.
• The Committee on Conscience at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
• Passion of the Present: An independent, non-partisan, all-volunteer community initiative to stop the genocide in Sudan
• Ghosts of Rwanda is a powerful television documentary produced by PBS. The film asks: How could it happen that America and the west stood aside and did nothing to stop the slaughter of 800,000 human beings over 100 days?

This lesson is part of the American Idealist Unit

Why should students study the life of Sargent Shriver? While there are many ways to answer this question, one answer that inspired the production of this film was the belief that Shriver's life offers important lessons about the power of idealism to solve social problems such as poverty, to promote peace, and to nurture civic participation. Explaining his decision to title the film American Idealist, Bruce Orenstein, the film's producer, explains,

Actually nobody explicitly stated to me that Sarge Shriver was an idealist. In fact for many, the word idealist carries connotations of someone whose thoughts about life are unrealizable, not practical. Yet, virtually to a person, when I talked with Shriver's colleagues and friends they used the term idealist.¹

In this lesson, students will gain a deeper understanding of idealism through exploring Shriver's life and accomplishments. Watching American Idealist will give students a rich collection of evidence documenting Shriver's idealism. For example, when Shriver is asked by a reporter, "Do you really believe that poverty can be wiped out?" Shriver responds assertively, "Yes, I do." Throughout the film, we see Shriver taking on challenges wholeheartedly, whether it was the Peace Corps or the War on Poverty. A friend and colleague of Shriver, Edgar May, described Shriver's idealism best when he said,

We were talking about outlandish dreams-unrealistic expectations. Whether it was Sarge Shriver saying "No, no, no, we're not going to have 50,000 children in Head Start this summer; we're going to have half a million . . ." that's vintage Sargent Shriver. Optimism. Hope.

Viewing the whole film will give students a deeper understanding of Shriver's idealism and how this idealism influenced his approach to public policy. Viewing the opening (Chapter 1) and Chapter 2 of the film provides students with sufficient information to begin to analyze Shriver's idealism and how it was fueled by his biography.

Students begin the lesson by thinking about the meaning of the word idealist. Even students who are unfamiliar with this word can begin to tease apart its meaning by looking closely at the word's root-"ideal." The abstract concept of idealism is made more concrete when students have to identify an idealist from their own lives. A discussion about what makes these people idealistic provides a vehicle for reflecting on the dictionary definition of the term. Throughout this lesson, students will build on their understanding of what it means to be an idealist, and by the end of this lesson they will construct their own definition of this term.

In the main activity of this lesson, students watch selected portions of American Idealist. (As mentioned above, this lesson could also be implemented with students viewing the entire film.) The three-minute introduction of the film provides information that helps answer the question, "Why did people call Sargent Shriver an idealist?" For example, Colman McCarthy recounts how people told Shriver he was "doomed to fail," yet Shriver continued to develop new social programs. In this brief clip, we hear Shriver connect actions to values as he proudly explained how Peace Corps volunteers were "letting their actions speak for their hearts and for their minds and their country." Debriefing the introduction of the film not only provides an opportunity to understand Shriver's work and attitude, but it also provides another opportunity for students to reflect on the definition of the word idealist.

At this point in the lesson, students might wonder how Shriver came to be an "American Idealist." Adolescence is an important period of identity development. Consciously or unconsciously, students think about who they are, how they came to be that way, and who they want to be. To help students explore questions about identity, it is often useful to provide them with the opportunity to consider how other people's identities have been shaped by their biographies. In the case of Sargent Shriver, we can explore how his idealism was influenced by his family, friends, personal experiences, and historical context. In Chapter 3 of American Idealist, we learn about Hilda Shriver, Sargent's politically active mother. We see how Robert Shriver, Sargent's father, took him along when he did charitable work in the tenements of Baltimore or New York. Catholicism is another important aspect of Shriver's life, as revealed in this film. His parents' founding of the magazine Commonweal is one example of how the Shriver family's interpretation of Catholicism led them to respect the dignity and humanity of all people, regardless of race, gender, or class. The film also chronicles how Shriver gained personal insights into poverty when his family lost its fortune during the Depression. By using their film notes to construct identity charts for Sargent Shriver, students can synthesize their knowledge about Shriver's life. This prepares them to discuss the relationship between Shriver's biography and his idealism.

A discussion of idealism might also focus on the question of why many people associate idealism with being impractical. According to Orenstein, the same individuals who use the term idealism when describing Shriver, "strongly objected to the term idealist" in the title of the film. They told Orenstein that Shriver wasn't an "out of touch," "pie in the sky" politician. Orenstein explains, "Because Shriver combined both political pragmatism with a hope that we could be different, we could do better . . . one close friend of his actually suggested the film be called The Practical Idealist.² What makes Shriver such a fascinating and important subject for study is how he defied the stereotype of the "out of touch" idealist through his pragmatic approach to public policy.

The follow-through activity asks students to present their understanding of idealism as a "recipe." This task allows students to develop their own interpretation of idealism. While the recipes themselves provide insight into students' definitions of idealism, it is their explanations-either written or oral-that illuminate how students used the example of Sargent Shriver, in addition to their previous knowledge, to come to this understanding.

By the end of this lesson, students should be able to reflect on the role of idealists in society. Orenstein writes,

Growth and change cannot come about without people who are passionate about what they believe in and fervently stick to their ideals. The change agents are always idealists. They make us "believe in the horizons of the possible," as one of Shriver's colleagues describes him. Idealists are the ones who imagine and work for a world that is more humane and enlightened than what the world's hardnosed political pragmatics believe it could ever be. Without idealists, there can be no progress.³

Surely Shriver's style of idealism contributed to progress for the many Americans, and those outside of the United States, who benefited from programs he developed, including Head Start and the Peace Corps.

Ultimately, American Idealist presents idealism in a positive light. Yet students might also consider how idealism, if fueled by racist ideology for example, can be very dangerous. A final discussion might focus on how idealism, especially in the form of a powerful leader, has been used and abused throughout history.

This lesson is part of the American Idealist Unit

There are many ways individuals and groups choose to influence their communities. One way is through working with government to shape and manage public policy. In this lesson, students will study how public policy was used to fight poverty in the 1960s.

In 1964, 30 million Americans lived in poverty. As part of his Great Society program, President Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty and asked Sargent Shriver to direct this effort. Speaking about the challenge facing Shriver, Scott Stossel, author of Sarge: A Biography of Sargent Shriver, remarked:

If a general was asked, you know, I want you to launch a war on Grenada, could you invade it and take it over, well you know that's something you can get your mind around. But, a war on poverty? That's like saying could you . . . for all intents and purposes, . . . wage war on gravity?¹

Undeterred by the daunting task of launching a War on Poverty, when asked if poverty could be wiped out, Shriver answered unequivocally, "Yes I do. Very bad health care, very bad schools. That kind of poverty doesn't need to exist today. It can be wiped out," he argued.² In the beginning of this lesson, students will see a short clip from the film when Shriver is asked to direct the War on Poverty and then they will have the opportunity "to offer him" advice.

Like any war general, Shriver's decisions were guided by a coherent and explicit strategy. He firmly believed that the way to help people rise out of poverty was to help them help themselves. Professor James T. Fisher explains, "Shriver hated the idea of handouts, which he equated with what he called cheap grace-a kind of charity [that] does not empower people."³ Describing his strategy for the War on Poverty, Shriver states, "This is no handout program. There are no giveaways in the War on Poverty. We're investing in human dignity, not in doles."⁴ While Shriver expressed a belief that individuals are capable of getting themselves out of poverty, he also argued that it is the government's responsibility to provide services that help people in the effort to improve their lives. "Our idea was to discover ways in which people could be helped to help themselves," he explained.

One of the purposes of this lesson is to help students learn about different approaches to fighting poverty, and conducting public policy in general. The general population does not agree about the "proper" role for government and the individual when it comes to alleviating poverty. Most likely, your students' views will not share the same beliefs either. Thus, a conversation about approaches to fighting poverty must be grounded in rules about respectful discourse. For some students, a discussion about poverty may be abstract and intellectual, while for others it might be concrete and visceral. An open, respectful classroom climate provides the safest space for students to share their experiences, opinions, and questions about this important and sensitive topic.

Another goal of this lesson is to help students identify the tactics (or tools) Shriver used to support his strategy in the War on Poverty. For example, Shriver developed a variety of programs designed to help people use political institutions, education, and the justice system to reduce poverty in their own lives and in their communities. In the film American Idealist, we see how Shriver was able to secure federal funding and community support for his programs by listening to community members' needs, conducting thorough research about problems and solutions, and negotiating with legislators. By studying Shriver's tactics as director of the War on Poverty, students can discover tools they can apply to solving other problems.

American Idealist also documents some of the obstacles Shriver faced as director of the War on Poverty. Politicians, including mayors and senators, questioned the concept of giving funding directly to people in the community to run their own programs. They also were skeptical of the idea that legal action against government offices should be supported with federal dollars. Yet the most significant challenge to the War on Poverty came in the form of another war: the Vietnam War. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided that the Vietnam War was the nation's highest priority, and Congress allowed funding for the Office of Economic Opportunity to lapse. As a result, Shriver was forced to cancel several anti-poverty programs. Even though Shriver was ultimately able to convince Congress to restore much of the funding for his programs, he became increasingly aware that he would never be able to garner the investment needed to truly end poverty. With this realization in mind, Shriver retired as director of the War on Poverty in 1968.

In his four years as the leader of the War on Poverty, Shriver achieved many successes. According to American Idealist, "From 1964 to 1968, nearly one out of every three poor Americans left the poverty rolls. It was the largest four-year drop ever recorded."⁴ The film provides the following evidence documenting how the War on Poverty had begun to alleviate America's poverty problem:

• Head Start led to a revolution in early childhood education. Twenty-three million children have benefited from the program and thousands of women have used Head Start teaching as a pathway to enter the workforce.
• Community Action provided political training and pathways into public office and other positions of power for tens of thousands of blacks and Latinos.
• Legal Services invented the practice of poverty law. Its lawyers won hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court, thus advancing opportunities for the poor nationwide in education, employment, and housing.

Many of the programs Shriver started in the 1960s still help Americans today. Yet, how does one begin to evaluate success in a war on poverty? There are more poor people in the United States today than in 1964 when Shriver began his War on Poverty. In 2006, 36.5 million people, over 12 percent of the population of the United States, were classified as poor by the federal government. What is being done today to fight poverty? What are effective ways to reduce poverty? Who is ultimately responsible for participating in the War on Poverty? Studying the work of Sargent Shriver is one way to begin answering these important questions.

As American newspapers turned attention to the unfolding horrors within the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th century, leaders in the United States and other countries struggled to find an appropriate response to what was recognized as a massive violation provides an opportunity to recognize the ways people can work today to prevent neighbor from turning against neighbor. This lesson focuses on two American responses to the Armenian Genocide: the diplomatic response of Henry Morgenthau Sr., American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and the humanitarian response of the American Committee for Relief in the Near East.

This lesson addresses the following essential questions:

• What were American responses to the Armenian genocide? What factors influenced their response?
• What is sovereignty? Are there situations when a foreign nation should intervene in another government's affairs? If so, when? Is military intervention ever justified?

Lesson one introduces students to the Armenian Genocide by having them think about the role of history in shaping their own identity. Looking at an autobiographical painting by Arshile Gorky, a renowned American artist and a refugee from the Armenian Genocide, will stimulate students' questions about how his identity was shaped by the past. These questions should provide an entry point into a study of the Armenian Genocide.

Essential questions addressed in this lesson include:

• What does my name mean? Where did it come from? How is my identity shaped by the past?
• Who is Arshile Gorky? Why did he change his name? What influenced his painting of
• "The Artist and his Mother?" How was his identity shaped by the past?
• How do you interpret a work of art? What can we learn from looking at a painting?

This lesson introduces students to the challenges of seeking justice in the aftermath of genocide. Unlike the Holocaust, most of the primary perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide were not held accountable for their actions. While there were several sets of trials inside Turkey, Talaat, the Young Turk Minister of the Interior, and other key architects of the Armenian Genocide were able to avoid punishment by going into exile. Although Allied leaders threatened to punish Ottoman officials for "crimes against humanity and civilization", following the First World War an absence of political and moral will dashed any hopes for justice.

This lesson addresses the following essential questions:

• What is justice?
• For there to be justice after the crimes against the Armenians, what would need to happen?
• Who should be held accountable? Who would need to be involved?

This lesson explores the challenges facing Armenians during the second half of the 19th century as they advocated for equal rights within the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the 19th century, Armenians and other minorities struggled to obtain equal rights. At the same time, nationalism swept through the Ottoman Empire, convincing Greeks and other nationalities to demand independence. Most Armenians rejected calls for separation and instead pushed for reform of the Ottoman government. They looked for allies both inside and outside of the empire, including leaders of what would become the Young Turk movement. During this period, many European and Russian diplomats became increasingly concerned about the treatment of minority groups within the Ottoman Empire. Their arguments and efforts to protect those minorities would set important precedents for the international movement for human rights. However, in the absence of adequate protection, Armenians found themselves facing increasing discrimination and violence. In this lesson, students will consider the consequences of choices made by the Ottoman Government, the international community, and Ottoman Armenian leaders.

The lesson addresses these essential questions:

• Who are the Armenians? What is the Ottoman Empire?
• What rights did Armenians have in the Ottoman Empire?
• What choices were available to Armenians as they sought equal rights in the Ottoman Empire?
• How did the Ottoman government respond to Armenian political demands?
• What happened when Armenians began demanding more rights?
• How did officials in the Ottoman Empire respond?
• What challenges do minorities face when they demand for more rights?
• How is religion and nationality used to create distinctions of "we" and "they"?