Showing posts with label united states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label united states. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Dr. John Hope Franklin - Black Historian



The world mourns the passing of Dr. John Hope Franklin of North Carolina. By most accounts, he is the greatest historian of African American history.

This is Dr. Franklin's biography on the Duke University website, where he was the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History:

John Hope Franklin was the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History, and for seven years was Professor of Legal History in the Law School at Duke University. He was a native of Oklahoma and a graduate of Fisk University. He received the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in history from Harvard University. He has taught at a number of institutions, including Fisk University, St. Augustine's College, North Carolina Central University, and Howard University. In 1956 he went to Brooklyn College as Chairman of the Department of History; and in 1964, he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago, serving as Chairman of the Department of History from 1967 to 1970. At Chicago, he was the John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor from 1969 to 1982, when he became Professor Emeritus.

Professor Franklin's numerous publications include The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, Reconstruction After the Civil War, and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Ante-bellum North. Perhaps his best known book is From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African-Americans, now in its seventh edition. His Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities for 1976 was published in 1985 and received the Clarence L. Holte Literary Prize for that year. In 1990, a collection of essays covering a teaching and writing career of fifty years, was published under the title, Race and History: Selected Essays, 1938-1988. In 1993, he published The Color Line: Legacy for the Twenty-first Century. Professor Franklin's most recent book, My Life and an Era: The Autobiography of Buck Colbert Franklin, is an autobiography of his father that he edited with his son, John Whittington Franklin. His current research deals with "Dissidents on the Plantation: Runaway Slaves."

Professor Franklin was active in numerous professional and education organizations. For many years he served on the editorial board of the Journal of Negro History. He also served as President of the following organizations: The American Studies Association (1967), the Southern Historical Association (1970), the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa (1973-76), the Organization of American Historians (1975), and the American Historical Association (1979). He has been a member of the Board of Trustees of Fisk University, the Chicago Public Library, and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Association.

Professor Franklin served on many national commissions and delegations, including the National Council on the Humanities, from which he resigned in 1979, when the President appointed him to the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. He also served on the President's Advisory Commission on Ambassadorial Appointments. In September and October of 1980, he was a United States delegate to the 21st General Conference of UNESCO. Among many other foreign assignments, Dr. Franklin served as Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions at Cambridge University, Consultant on American Education in the Soviet Union, Fulbright Professor in Australia, and Lecturer in American History in the People's Republic of China.

Professor Franklin was the recipient of many honors. In 1978, Who's Who in America selected Dr. Franklin as one of eight Americans who has made significant contributions to society. In the same year, he was elected to the Oklahoma Hall of Fame. He also received the Jefferson Medal for 1984, awarded by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. In 1989, he was the first recipient of the Cleanth Brooks Medal of the Fellowship of Southern Writers, and in 1990 received the Encyclopedia Britannica Gold Medal for the Dissemination of Knowledge. In 1993, Dr. Franklin received the Charles Frankel Prize for contributions to the humanities, and in 1994, the Cosmos Club Award and the Trumpet Award from Turner Broadcasting Corporation. In 1995, he received the first W.E.B. DuBois Award from the Fisk University Alumni Association, the Organization of American Historians' Award for Outstanding Achievement, the Alpha Phi Alpha Award of Merit, the NAACP's Spingarn Medal, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1996, Professor Franklin was elected to the Oklahoma Historians Hall of Frame and in 1997 he received the Peggy V. Helmerich Distinguished Author Award. In addition to his many awards, Dr. Franklin has received honorary degrees from more than one hundred colleges and universities.

Professor Franklin has been extensively written about in various articles and books. Most recently he was the subject of the film First Person Singular: John Hope Franklin. Produced by Lives and Legacies Films, the documentary was featured on PBS in June 1997.

Professor Franklin died of congestive heart failure at Duke Hospital on the morning of March 25th, 2009. He is survived by his son, John Whittington Franklin, daughter-in-law Karen Roberts Franklin, sister-in-law Bertha W. Gibbs, cousin Grant Franklin Sr., a host of nieces, nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews, other family members, many generations of students and friends. There will be a celebration of his life and of his late wife Aurelia Franklin at 11 a.m. June 11 in Duke Chapel in honor of their 69th wedding anniversary.


~ ~ ~


What follows is the AJC.com article on the life of Dr. Franklin:

John Hope Franklin winced when people called him America’s greatest black historian, as many did. It would be more fitting to call him the greatest historian of black America.

In more than 70 years of scholarship, he documented the African-American experience as no one had done before — a body of work that earned him more than 100 honorary degrees, making him perhaps the most decorated academician of his time.

Franklin, 94, died Wednesday of congestive heart failure at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. He was best known as the author of the groundbreaking chronicle, “From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans.”

Published in 1947, the book was updated eight times and sold more than 3 million copies. But that was only his most visible achievement.

Starting in 1936 at Fisk University in Nashville, Franklin published hundreds of academic articles and 16 books about African-American and Southern history before ending his career as a professor at Duke. He was part of a generation of historians, including C. Vann Woodward and David Potter, who challenged the racial stereotyping and Lost Cause sentimentality that had dominated the study of Southern history.

Unlike earlier historians, for instance, Franklin viewed the Civil War as more of a liberation than a defeat for the region. “It had been delivered from the domination of an institution that had stifled its economic development and rendered completely ineffective its intellectual life,” he wrote.

Franklin challenged prevailing thought outside the ivy walls as well. Early in his career, he helped research the lawsuit that Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP took to the Supreme Court in 1954 to overturn public school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.

Decades later, he went to Capitol Hill to testify against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork, whom he saw as an enemy of civil rights. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton appointed Franklin chairman of his national commission on race relations.

Franklin’s activism was rooted in the indignities of his personal experience.

Born in 1915 in Oklahoma, Franklin was the son of a lawyer and a schoolteacher who named him John Hope after the president of Atlanta University. The family was moving to Tulsa in 1921 when one of the worst race riots in American history broke out and Mr. Franklin’s law office was burned down. He worked out of a tent for months.

Franklin planned to follow his father into law when he went away to college at Fisk. Instead, he fell under the sway of a white history professor, Theodore Currier, who inspired him to change disciplines and enroll at Harvard, then loaned him $500 when he was accepted. He earned his doctorate there in 1941.

Holding a degree from a prestigious university didn’t shield Franklin from racial insults.

When he returned south to teach at St. Augustine’s College in Raleigh, N.C., he caused a stir by walking into the whites-only state archives. It had never occurred to anyone there that a black scholar might want to use the archives.

Franklin was given a room of his own to work in, safely segregated from the other scholars.

It was one of many such slights over the years. After Pearl Harbor, Franklin attempted to volunteer for a Navy desk job but was turned down because of his skin color. As president of the Southern Historical Association, he organized a convention in Memphis but declined to attend because he couldn’t stay in the segregated headquarters hotel.

When he was named history chairman at Brooklyn College — the first black man to head a history department at a major, predominantly white college — scores of real estate agents refused to show houses to him and his wife.

Despite such episodes, Franklin’s work remained remarkably free of anger or ideology. “He has never bowed to the pressure of fashions and the propaganda of black nationalism,” Woodward, the eminent historian of the South, said in 1991.

Franklin had published only one book when editor Alfred Knopf approached him in the 1940s about writing a history of Negro Americans. Franklin didn’t want to do it at first; the subject seemed too broad. But he acquiesced, in part because no comprehensive history existed.

The result, “From Slavery to Freedom,” was “the story of the strivings of the nameless millions who have sought adjustment in a new and sometimes hostile world,” as Franklin put it in the preface.

Franklin wrote and edited many other books during a career that took him from St. Augustine’s to North Carolina Central (1943) to Howard University (1947) to Brooklyn College (1956) to the University of Chicago (1964). One of the best received works, “The Militant South” (1956), seemed particularly relevant; it explored the antebellum roots of the region’s martial spirit and appetite for violence, which were again rearing their heads during the civil rights struggle.

After years of teaching in the North, Franklin moved back South in 1980 and eventually took professorships in Duke’s history and law departments. The move suited him. Franklin cut a distinguished figure, with his erect 6-foot frame, thin mustache and courtly manners, and he found the gentler pace of Southern life more to his liking.

“The South, as a place, is as attractive to blacks as it is to whites,” he explained in 1995. “Blacks, even when they left the South, didn’t stop having affection for it. They just couldn’t make it there. Then they found the North had its problems, too, so you look for a place of real ease and contentment where you can live as a civilized human being. That’s the South…. It’s home.”

Franklin lived in Durham with his former college sweetheart and wife of 59 years, Aurelia, a librarian who died in 1999. Their only child, John W. Franklin, became a program director at the Smithsonian Institution.


~ ~ ~


plez sez: i am a bit of a history buff and join the world in mourning the loss of this country's greatest historian of Black's in America. like me, Dr. Franklin wasn't born in the south, but we both had an affinity as this being the natural home for Black Americans.

i join the world in thanking dr. franklin in shining a light on the accomplishments and facts of our involvement in the building of America.

~ ~ Citations ~ ~

Read the Dr. Franklin's biography here.

Read the AJC.com article about the life and times of Dr. John Hope Franklin.

Read the CNN.com article about the passing of Dr. John Hope Franklin.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




Thursday, August 14, 2008

Bush on the Russia-Georgia Conflict

August 13, 2008 - President George W. Bush on the Russia-Georgia Conflict



False hope for Georgians? This is an excerpt from the New York Times article on US involvement in Georgia:
In Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili, who has sharply criticized what he called a failure of the West to support his country, declared the [US] relief operation a “turning point” in the conflict, which began on Thursday when Georgian forces tried to establish control in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, only to be routed by the Russians.

“We were unhappy with the initial actions of the American officials, because they were perceived by the Russians as green lines, basically, but this one was very strong,” he said in a telephone interview after Mr. Bush’s statement in Washington.

Mr. Saakashvili interpreted the aid operation as a decision to defend Georgia’s ports and airports, though Bush administration and Pentagon officials quickly made it clear that would not be the case. A senior administration official said, “We won’t be protecting the airport or seaport, but we’ll certainly protect our assets if we need to.”

Mr. Bush spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House, flanked by his secretaries of state and defense, Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates. He said that Ms. Rice would fly to France to support its mediation efforts and then to Georgia “to continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.”

State Department officials said there were no plans for Ms. Rice to go to Moscow.


Read the CNN.com accounts of developments surrounding the Bush speech on the Russia-Georgia conflict here and here.

Read the New York Times account of developments surrounding the Russia-Georgia conflict here.

Read an interesting New York Times Q&A on Soviet Georgia here.

plez sez: so george w. bush DEMANDS that russia leaves georgia. or else...

or else, the US will send even MORE humanitarian aid to georgia!

we have neither the will nor the might to tangle with the russians. in bush's speech (and subsequently in responses from administration & pentagon officials), he made it abundantly clear that our troops are not going to georgia to fight, our troops are there to hand out blankets and hot cocoa.

thanks to george bush's failed foreign policy and his illegal war in iraq, we don't have a military capable of backing up bush's hollow demands. at this point, without the threat of military intervention, bush's words are nothing more than a sternly worded suggestion! and i'm afraid that sending the gap-toothed secretary of state of the lamest of lame duck presidents over there won't change much either.




Friday, June 27, 2008

SCOTUS Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1976, Washington, DC passed the following law which banned handguns in the District: "The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and disassembled
or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities."

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, was recruited to challenge the D.C. law, his lawsuit made its way to this session of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession, deciding for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court's opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The opinion reads in part, "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. [The Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the minority said, "[this decision] threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States [and this is a] formidable and potentially dangerous" [mission for the courts to undertake]." He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sen. John McCain (AZ), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee quickly put out a statement endorsing the decision, calling it a "landmark victory" for Second Amendment rights. "Today's ruling . . . makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," McCain said.

Sen. Barack Obama (IL), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee issued a statement saying that "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

Read and download the entire SCOTUS decision on District of Columbia v. Heller here.

Read the entire Washington Post article on the SCOTUS decision here.


plez sez: it's been said before, "plezWorld doesn't like guns, because they are used to kill people." i don't have any in my house and i try to stay away from people who carry them.

some have taken my stance to think that i don't believe in the second amendment. i concur with the "right to bear arms," but i feel the application and misuse of the second amendment has wrought enough misery on the US over the past 230 years. i'm no jurist, i'm no lawyer, but i can read and it seems pretty obvious that the framers of the constitution were of a mindset when this amendment was published that has little or no relevance during modern times.

first, they had just run off the redcoats with their muskets. they formed local militias to fend fight off the british. the british swept through communities during the revolutionary war and confiscated guns and ammunition. therefore to ward off a strong federal government (if it grew big and powerful enough to behave like king george iii) the james madison (the amendment's author) wrote a provision into the constitution that each State would have a "well regulated" militia with militia men who were able "to bear arms." it seems pretty clear to plezWorld this provision applied to those who were trained as part of a militia group (i.e. the national guard, etc.).

upon reading scalia's opinion, it is obvious that he played loosey goosey with the State and meaning behind "well regulated militia."

historically, these state militias have done more harm to individual rights (see the civil rights movement during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's) than any federal intervention (except for the civil war, which by the way was started when a - you got it - a state militia in south carolina fired on the federal government!

Colbert King opines in the Washington Post that the thugs that roam the mean streets of the district have long maintained their second amendment rights in light of the 32 year ban on handguns. excerpts of his opion follow:
There's one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District's strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.

Operating under the notion that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, our shooters long ago decided not to wait for the high court's thoughts on the matter. They simply arrogated to themselves the right to keep and bear arms and, with that right, license to shoot and kill, with impunity, whatever and whenever the evil spirits moved them.

The record will show that our home-grown shooters have blown through the city's so-called strict handgun ban like John Riggins going up the middle. Over the past 20 years, there have been more than 6,500 homicides in the nation's capital, most committed with firearms, predominantly handguns. In 1976, the year the ban was put in place, the District had 135 gun-related murders, according to CNN. Last year, the number reached 143. Thus far this year, we've had 85 murders.

in 1770's, the arms were muskets and long rifles, arms that were good at close range and could only fire one shot at a time. they didn't imagine semi-automatic guns and revolvers. there needs to be some kind of regulation and rules to limit gun ownership to ensure that any "tom, dick, or dirty harry" can be packing (anyone remember columbine and virginia tech?).

this decision by the court is reckless. i would've much rather seen them require the district to change the unrealistic handgun ban rather than open the floodgates to assaults on gun laws around the country by the emboldened NRA. heaven help us!