Confessions of a Former Republican

On my social media feeds, my friends--or at least acquaintances--come from a relatively wide range on the political spectrum. From the left-leaning progressive to the Trump-supporting conservative, if you could name any point on that spectrum, I can most likely name someone I know.

Prior to the 2016 elections, I considered myself pretty conservative. I adhered heavily to pro-life discourse, and was raised to see all pro-choice people as evil baby-murderers; I subscribed to LifeSiteNews and I even followed Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) on Facebook, inspired by the creative propaganda posters which compared the pro-life movement to the anti-slavery movements of the 19th century. I also had a complicated attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community due to my conservative Catholic upbringing. Up until the election of President Trump, I committed to voting Republican as soon as I turned 18.

Superimposed on an antislavery illustration is the AHA logo. The caption implies that a new generation of abolitionists is rising to combat what they see is the next iteration of human rights violations: abortion.

It was during the primaries and elections of 2016 that my relationship with the GOP began to deteriorate. Donald Trump's extreme and divisive rhetoric initially motivated me to vote against him in the Republican primary (as I still did not want to pitch in for a Democratic ticket at the time). However, seeing that the GOP was gradually putting their full force behind him, I decided to cast a spite vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then Gary Johnson in the general election. Again, I had not fully switched over to the Democratic Party this time, as I still held on to the conservative values which I believed were not being represented well by Trump.

Basically, my attitude as a Never Trumper Republican was this (skip to 0:50):

 

Reading Geoffrey Kabaservice's book, Rule and Ruin, I found a similar divide within the GOP between its moderate and conservative wings, particularly in the realm of civil rights legislation. It was here that I understood why the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Trump were disconnected in historical discourse. At first, I assumed that the Republican Party was always the party of life due to its role in abolishing slavery under President Lincoln; I assumed that the party simply adapted that lineage to advocate for anti-abortion legislation. However, the ideological shift from a moderate GOP to a conservative one was the smoking gun in Kabaservice's history.

On AHA's Facebook page, there are numerous propaganda posters which utilize this discourse of political lineage. Not holding back on their graphic displays of aborted fetuses (I saw a disturbing photo of a stuffed crucified fetus at a pro-life rally), AHA uses the struggles of anti-slavery abolitionists and even Holocaust victims to legitimize their campaign; in their view, abortion is a legal but immoral entity that must be eliminated as a sacred civil duty. Back when I was a conservative, this appealed to me greatly, and I often used this discourse when I debated with pro-choice opponents.

Back to Kabaservice's smoking gun. I still considered myself pro-life across the board, and I believed wholeheartedly in saving babies not just from abortion, but also economic and social instability. When I witnessed the GOP, and even many of my conservative friends, supporting the caging and separation of immigrant families, I was horrified and I tried to appeal to their sense of sacred conservative duty by convincing them that Trump was not in our best interests; unfortunately, that appeal fell on deaf ears.

There are many more factors which unraveled my association with the Republican Party and American conservatism, but the aftermath of President Trump's election revealed a lot of true colors within my social circles. The accomplishments of your predecessors doesn't justify your current actions no more than my family name determines my career.

Started on Hurtado!

Also for my course on the American West, I have started reading Sex, Gender, and Culture in Old California by Albert L. Hurtado. This book documents the history of California from the Spanish missions to the gold rush. The main angles that Hurtado tackles the narrative from are those of sex and gender roles within the multiple ethnic groups portrayed.

The first chapter I read focuses on the Spanish missions. At the onset, Hurtado presents this narrative as a collision of differing interpretations of human sexuality. Although the indigenous traditions of what is now California were generally a well-established system, the incoming Spanish colonials, especially the Franciscan missionaries, interpreted these systems as a "immoral" force to be controlled in order to maintain the superiority of Catholic Spanish rule. Through the missions, shame was tied to the old ways in an attempt to convert the natives to a more "civilized" and controlled sexual nature, based on the principles of Catholic teaching.

However, many native men and women sought to weave around the contradictory systems being imposed on them. Often, they would often provide social and moral alibis to justify their continued sexual behaviors. Although the shame factors were still in place, many played around the rules and attempted to create new avenues to preserve their own heritage. It is an interesting example of "reinterpreting to preserve".

The second chapter fast forwards to the early half of the 19th century, when Anglo-Americans began emigrating to Mexican California in pursuit of a gold-ridden future. This further complicated the system generated by the Spanish-Indian cultural collision by introducing a new character into the story. The Anglo-American, Protestant man now had to be accounted for and new societal norms had to simultaneously accommodate and control the new arrivals. White non-Catholics were in an interesting position because although they were considered even more desirable marriage partners than native Californians, they still needed to be assimilated in order to be guaranteed a position of power and social standing.

This was honestly a bit of a thick read at the onset, but I'm starting to get the hang of the complexity.

Humanizing the Frontier

As I continue to read Limerick's book, the American myths about the West continue to separate in my mind from the facts and interpretations of the "Other".

The chapters I read dealt primarily with the myths that have been solidified in the American mind. The heroic sheriff comes to the rescue when an unruly outlaw or Indian attempts to stir trouble. Disneyland's Frontierland is cited by Limerick as a modern-day example of the solidified myth. In fact, the term "frontier" continues to be used by many groups as a term for what I would call a "border of potential". What I mean by this is an area where an entity or idea has the potential to surpass its perceived limits to achieve even greater things.

Frontiers, according to Limerick, have been portrayed in the media as generally heroic prospects, echoing the perceived heroism of white American pioneers in "taming" the frontier of the West. Even in the 20th century, "frontiers" were still being conceived by American presidents and figureheads as a sort of new tier to the American ziggurat of progress. With that in mind, Limerick seems to argue that many Americans fear to let go of the myths out of fear that their credibility and progress would collapse on itself.

The case of John Sutter, a man who contributed to the development of modern California, is a more specific case that Limerick presents in her narratives. Although Sutter is recorded to have had a history of manipulation, failure, and personal issues, he chose to have himself immortalized as this heroic, saintly figure in American history. Even now, his name is often synonymous with Christ-like suffering and heroism in many modern American history textbooks. Limerick's gripe is that this makes Sutter dehumanized and fails to take into account other perspectives which students might better relate to.

Limerick's proposals to humanize these historical figures seems to be an attempt to synchronize with the ever-growing diversity of America's student body. For many in this new generation, history may need to be given new dimensions in order to be more relatable and engaging. Without those connections, history is eventually going to end up as this white-washed, boring narrative that students just need to memorize to get those credits.

Unlearning the West

The other course I'm taking this semester is about constructions of the American West. I find it to be a very interesting idea to explore, as the American West was a constantly shifting entity in the minds of Americans through the centuries.

The first book assigned for this week is Something in the Soil by Patricia Nelson Limerick. I'm happy to say that even though I've read only the introduction of this book so far, I'm excited to delve into the complexities of the West, from the intersections of different ethnic groups to the moral gray of Western actors.

-a few chapters later...- 

Needless to say, I am impressed with the book so far, as well as the discussion we had on them. Our professor is very engaging and definitely brings the content to life. So far, we've knocked out quite a few stereotypes about the West; gone are the moral archetypes of the sheriff and the outlaw, and we dive into a moral gray that is not so different than "Game of Thrones". It's a tad short, but I will definitely be writing more on this.

Reconstruction: A Revolution in Reverse

Although I am on a European history track, I've been racking up some U.S. history on my transcript. I've gone back and taken a course on American history from Reconstruction until the present day. It's kinda weird when you're the only non-TA graduate student in the whole lecture hall, but it provides for some unique insight.

The textbook I'm reading for this course is one compiled by the very professor teaching my course, Dr. Kevin Schultz. I had to buy a new copy and turn in my used one when I realized I had to get an access code for the online content. Anyways, this will be my first attempt at compiling my thoughts into a notes-blog format. It's a new way for me to converse with myself and the content to better expand my understanding of the course content.

We started off the semester by discussing Reconstruction. Having taken AP U.S. History in junior year, Mrs. Spiegel (my APUSH teacher) did drill our heads with entertaining mnemonic devices to get us 5's on the AP exam, whether it was dancing, singing, or compiling a student film.

Recap: The Civil War just ended, and now the time has come to reintegrate the former Confederate States back into the Union. All enslaved African-Americans have been freed by way of the Thirteenth Amendment. As one can see, there was a lot on the government's plate to sew the nation back together.

Many in the Republican-dominated Congress wanted a hardline approach to readmission; namely, the South needed to be punished for the sins of treason and slavery. President Abraham Lincoln, however, wanted to emphasize the process of healing by providing a lenient avenue to readmission, out of concern for the nation's integrity should the South develop any more bitter feelings against the victorious North.

After Lincoln's assassination and the subsequent terms of Johnson, Grant, and Hayes, the aspirations of Reconstruction were not only fading away, but even being reversed by the efforts of white Southerners wanting to revert their society to the antebellum state of racial hierarchy. In spite of early victories in suppressing racial discrimination and violence, many of the Radical Republican policies in the South were being stymied by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. The crusade to "redeem" the South was successful in that it weaved its way around the amendments meant to protect the newly freed slaves and essentially instituted a system of social and economic slavery to maintain their old way of doing things.

Reconstruction was, as one author put it, an "unfinished revolution". In reading this chapter, however, one can argue that it was a revolution set in reverse.

A Glorified Notebook

Another fall semester begins for me! After having taken a much-needed rest this summer, it's back to the books.

As a quick introduction for those reading my blogs for the first time, my name is Mark. I am currently a second-year graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, currently pursuing a master's degree in history education. Once that is done, I will hopefully be certified to teach for the State of Illinois as a public school educator. On the side, I am also pursuing an officer's commission through Army ROTC at the same school, but that's a whole different story that won't get as much mention on this particular site.

I began this new blog as a fresh, new platform for my academic notes. I do have a personal blog called The Mapping which documents tidbits of my personal life, so you can check that as well on your free time. But this blog in particular will be a tracker for my school notes that I take for my academic years when I do a particular reading or an occasional bit of research.

I decided to start this up as I realized blogging was a good way to jog my mind and thought process. For me, it was easy to read a book, but once it came to discussion, I locked up and had trouble thinking of something to say. Hopefully, this blog will alleviate that issue and give me some things to talk about on my end. As for you, humble reader, I hope you enjoy the content being posted here and perhaps consider reading what I'll be reading in the years to come.