QAMBER Rukhsana

QAMBER, Rukhsana

Nanzan University Repository / 南山大学機関リポジトリ

History and Society Workshop 1Summary of DiscussionRukhsana QAMBERQUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITYThe presentation Dr. Miyuki Kita of the University of Kitakyushu, “SeekingJustice: The Civil Rights Movement, Black Nationalism and Jews at BrandeisUniversity,” started the first workshop of the morning session of the second dayof NASSS 2009, followed by comments by Dr. Makoto Kurosaki, and a question-answer session. Miyuki Kita wisely chose to only read out important sections ofthe text of her paper, already circulated to NASSS participants. She meticulouslypointed out to the audience the lines that she wished them to skip from herdocument. Nevertheless, it was impossible for her, and the moderator of thesession, to maintain the specified 30-minute time limit. The discussion wasamply spurred by Dr. Makoto Kurosaki’s remarks.The NASSS convention, which is only fair, allows presenters to provide theirresponse to the commentator’s remarks. Accordingly, Dr. Kita had given us anincisive (pre-written) critique to her written text. Dr. Kurosaki’s response was tobasically point out the sections of her text that addressed the issues related toBrandeis University’s massive support for the African American civil rightsmovement of the 1950s and 60s and summarize his critique in four broadquestions that asked about the wider context of university activism, about thereligious versus racial divide at Brandeis and about the nature of the basic sourceof the paper, i.e., the student’s newspaper, The Justice. The rationale of Jewish-white support for blacks, as stressed by Dr. Kita, was the founding principle of theuniversity by its Jewish President, Rabbi Israel Goldstein, to avoid all forms ofdiscrimination on campus that targeted a persons’ religion or race. At the sametime, in an effort to prevent Brandeis University from becoming a sort of Jewishghetto, its administration encouraged African Americans to seek admission to thisotherwise white university. In addition, its students played a frontline role at sit-ins, freedom fasts, and other anti racial discrimination strategies that precipitatedcivil rights reforms in the United States.However, the two basic leitmotifs of NASSS 09, alluded to in the paper andthe discussant’s remarks, were not adequately satisfied during the proceedings ofNASSS 09: “Americanism and Social Justice”. Martin Luther King (MLK), thepaper had informed us, had referred to social justice eight times in his “I Have ADream” speech. But how was it part of the American creed, especially in thecontext of the paper? Were the civil rights movement, and/ or the establishment99NANZAN REVIEW OF AMERICAN STUDIESVolume 31 (2009): 99-100Proceedings of the NASSS 2009 History and Society Iand “project” of Brandeis University, in fact, expressions of social justice in auniversal context or specific to the 1960s USA? Was Brandeis an attempt atsocial justice in the US, in the world, or an effort to provide a place for highereducation for Jews, with a tinge of black to assuage the white-Jewish conscience?After all, as Dr. Kurosaki pointed out during the discussions, MLK may havevisited Brandeis a couple of times but he had not been convinced of theauthenticity of the stated goals and had actually spoken against the setting up ofBrandeis University.It appeared that, in a rush to support her central argument of Brandeis’ “colorblindness,” Dr. Kita had glossed over the critical arguments that may haveoccurred to her. The discussions made it apparent that she had yet to answer thecrucial questions raised by the commentator and other interlocutors. To hercredit, Dr. Kita graciously admitted she considered her paper in its present form tobe a work-in-progress; that she would incorporate answers to the queries raisedduring NASSS, and that this was her first public presentation in the Englishlanguage.The discussion generated active participation by the room full of academics.NASSS’s entire History and Society group had diligently turned up for thismorning session on the second day of the profession seminar (i.e., prior to the twoday graduate student seminar). Additional interested audience members had alsotraveled across Japan to participate in the meeting. The presentations and theensuing questions led to broader discussions about the twin issues ofAmericanism and social justice. We concluded that our discussions had notadequately linked up Americanism. We had almost fallen victim to despondencyabout defining it, when we recalled that America is itself is a “work-in-progress.”It was, at least since its encounter with Europe, an imaginary place where onecould find the mythical El Dorado. It was an idealistic utopia, a land with a levelplaying field where dreams could come through, where people could, in theoriginal Spanish language of its early settlers hacer America―“make it” up thesocio-economic and political ladder. And we recalled that since this ideal andexceptional America existed only in the minds of those who imagined it, it wasentirely possible for people across the globe to achieve “Americanism” and socialjustice within the societies that they already resided in.Rukhsana QAMBER100

History and Society Workshop 1 : Summary of Discussion

https://nanzan-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=228&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

History and Society Workshop 1 : Summary of Discussion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nanzan University Repository / 南山大学機関リポジトリ