Dismantling History. Should We Destroy Confederate Monuments?

With faces masked, company logos covered and under the protection of police snipers, New Orleans has begun to tear down the confederate monuments of its past. The first to go? The Battle of Liberty Statue, commemorating an insurrection of white citizens angered by the mixed race Reconstructionists.

tearing down confederate monuments

Back in September, we walked down Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. My son couldn’t fathom why these confederate monuments existed. In his black-and-white world, we were walking down a Mall of Traitors. My thoughts were more complicated. I could never quite decide how I felt about these towering memorials to an institution I despised, but recent events has me pondering them once more.

I’m a northern girl, through and through. President Lincoln is one of my personal heroes, even as I recognize his administration as the beginning of the federal overreach we wrestle against today. But there was a deeper evil in America than the violation of state’s rights. The seeds of our destruction were sown in our own Constitution as we decided it was possible to be 3/5ths of a man. And as millions of God’s people cried out to Him for their freedom, I think we are lucky He didn’t see fit to crush us all in their wake as he led them out of “Egypt.”

But my ancestors fought in the Civil War. All of the ones I know of fought for the confederacy. The willingness to fight and possibly die for land and liberty seems to run strong among the McIntires. We were killed in an Indian attack at Jamestown. We fought and were taken captive in the Revolutionary War. We fought in the Civil War, returned to our farms, and took up arms again for each of the World Wars. So far as I can tell, we never even owned slaves. But when Captain James fired the mortar on Fort Sumter, we had been farming the soil of Virginia for over 200 years.

I’m a northern girl, through and through. But I have never had that sense of being a Hoosier first, American second (much less a Nebraskan). There was more to the Civil War than slavery. In the end, the South was willing to free the slaves themselves in a last ditch effort to drum up troops to defend themselves from the North. There was something in the war they valued higher than their slaves. But it was too late . . . the slaves already knew they were freed.

So I stood at the feet of Stonewall Jackson, looking up at his larger-than-life figure. His presence was as impressive there in bronze and stone as it is through the pages of history. Recognized for his honesty and devout faith, he was an inspiration to his men. A war hero. A traitor.

Why is he standing here, on American soil, memorializing a defeated enemy?

The Civil War was like no other. Sure, there were political differences, social differences and philosophical differences. North and South had different economies, different interests and different cultures . . . without even throwing slavery into the discussion. Slavery was a part of each of those institutions, but it wasn’t the only part. And yet . . . we were still brothers. Brothers who had taken up arms against once another. A nation was divided. States were divided. Families were divided. Even Roger Pryor recognized the gravity of the moment and refused the offer to take that first shot that exploded over Fort Sumter.

When the war was over, Lincoln argued for amnesty and rebuilding the South. He desired to “bind up the nation’s wounds” and set a course for healing. His measures ultimately failed without his leadership, but as the South began memorializing its heros in statues and dedications, the North simply let them do it. The Union wanted to be a union, not a conquering force bent on the utter destruction of its enemy and the obliteration of all its institutions and symbols.

The South wanted to honor its heroes. And thumb its nose at the Union in the only way left to it.

So the statues were built. And in September, I walked down Monument Avenue, not sure what I thought of it all.

But art and statues and memorials do not exist solely to uphold a single, unified narrative of our history as we want it told. Mayor Landrieu’s idea that we are “correcting history” is as troubling to me as the existence of these monuments to our divided past. Of course, they never “reflected the totality of who we are.” Nothing ever does.

They do, however, reflect a part. A part that needs to be seen, pondered and discussed. A part that doesn’t go away simply by tearing down a few tons of bronze and concrete.

Perhaps instead of removing confederate monuments, we should consider adding something to them. Something like the “Fearless Girl” (minus the thinly veiled corporate marketing ploy). Something which contextualizes the history. Something that encourages us to walk away both reflective of the past and hopeful for the future.

The Choices in Education Act: Why Not Just Reject the Money?

Last week, I wrote about why I object to the Choices in Education Act as it is currently written. Commenter Katie asked,

“Would homeschoolers be required to use the vouchers? Or could they just opt out altogether and not accept any money whatsoever to offset their costs of education . . . ?”

choices in education act

It’s a good question. Why not just reject the money?

First, the law requires a reporting sytem that does not currently exist. Eleven states do not require any reporting at all. Homeschoolers who have worked to maintain their freedom from any state control will have this taken away in one stroke. The relationships they have built with their state legislatures and with their state homeschooling groups will not matter. Their state education agencies’ hands will be tied by federal law.

And no state currently has to report information to the federal government about homeschoolers. The US Department of Education is hungry for data on students. The system they are putting in place is wide reaching, including the basic demographic information you would expect on any government form as well as things like political affiliation, problems at home and affective and behavioral components that may be gathered by teachers or directly through the sensors in computer-based learning programs.

While this certainly would not immediately affect homeschoolers whether or not they took the voucher money, it is the kind of information the DOE wants on every student in America. Every step the federal government takes into our homeschools will inevitably lead toward including our data into their data mining schemes as well.

Second, what will be done with this data? Why does the government even need it? The information currently being collected is being analyzed to develop a predictive model of which students will and will not succeed in an educational setting.

“One goal is to provide consumers with user-friendly information that will help them select education and employment programs that best suit their needs. Another key goal–and the focus of this brief–is to make available timely information that can be used to help program providers and education and workforce systems overall improve their performance.”  ~Using Data to Promote Continuous Improvement of Workforce Programs (p. 1)

Meaning this data will be shared with schools, government and private employers. It will shape education goals and potentially be used to “track” students according to their tested ability toward different fields, possibly determining at a young age whether or not a student will be put on a course of study that includes college or immediate placement in the workplace. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity and education is one of the keys to that opportunity. Now we may be closing doors to students based on data collected through their school years, giving them few, if any, second chances. I am envisioning an America where we no longer ask children what they want to be when they grow up but instead ask them what their testing says they are going to be.

Does not taking the money protect us from this? Possibly. At least in the short term. But this law puts the system in place for reporting data on homeschoolers to the federal government. And their desire for information is almost limitless.

Third, we already have a strong push toward a federalized education system, with national standards and a national curriculum. We already have a system moving toward computer based learning, with tools to measure the affective domain and which includes behavioral and psychological measures as part of the standards. This push toward national standards has already affected private schools, thanks to the pressure from state governments and the funding structures already in place, never mind the potential of vouchers bringing even more money into the current system. Families are already feeling the need to leave even private, religious institutions in favor of homeschooling in order to escape the Common Core mandates they feel are distracting to the spiritual, emotional and academic growth of their children due to the undo focus on testing and performance.

The current administration may or may not view vouchers as a “back door” approach to bringing homeschoolers in line with national standards. But whatever policies are put into place now will be used (and abused) by future administrations to further direct education from the federal level. A significant number of homeschoolers likely will be drawn into the system, weakening our current organizations. But once the system is set up with a national exit exam as the only gateway to college and career, that test will affect teaching in every learning environment whether or not we directly signed on for it or not.

Finally, education should be a state issue. Period. Federal money should not be used, whether given to the states or directly to the parents, to influence the behavior of state agencies or parents. Even in the form of “choice,” it is simply outside the role of our federal government to force these programs on the states. Local school boards and state legislatures are more aware of the needs of their communities and more responsive to parental demands than the federal government. And it is the parent, not the state, that has the right to direct the education of their minor children.

If the sole purpose of this law were to give parents more resources to direct their child’s education, why not simply expand the Child Tax Credit? Or simply lower taxes? Let parents decide if their child is in greater need of a new school or new shoes or a family vacation. Because an increase in income in any good family will ultimately benefit the children in some way.

The argument that “it’s my money” does have some sway. But the natural conclusion is that the government shouldn’t be taking it in the first place.

So what’s the problem with vouchers?

Betsy DeVos is now our new Secretary of Education.

H.R. 610 and vouchers for homeschools

Some say she is the most unqualified person to fill the position. She was certainly one of the most controversial. All because her vision of education includes options outside the public education system. In her view, charter schools, private schools and homeschooling are all viable alternatives and that is not a position the teacher’s unions are particularly happy with.

That sounds great for homeschoolers.

So why is this is difficult for me? I support freedom in education. I do, after all, homeschool. I think we need more options for families who are stuck in sub-standard schools thanks to their income level. Education is a path out of poverty, but our worst schools are in our poorest areas. Unfortunately, choice in education does not necessarily mean freedom in education.

But there is another problem. A more subtle one. And one that we need to deal with quickly because bill H.R. 610 has already been put before Congress. Namely, what does federal money mean to a private institution? What would it mean for homeschooling?

My first objection to this is simple. Why on earth do I need to give the federal government money in order to have it returned to me via a voucher? We have enough money to support our children. We have enough money to educate our children. To participate in co-op. To sign up for some extra-curricular activities. To send them to camp. We don’t need money from the government to do any of this. How much of my tax dollars are eaten up in the bureaucracy so that I can get a small amount back in the form of a voucher? Why not just let me keep my money to begin with? What is the real reason behind this carrot on a stick?

And that brings me to my second objection. Federal money is about control. Pure and simple. It may or may not begin that way, but in the end, accepting federal money means accepting federal control.

Consider President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. As Os Guinness writes in A Case for Civility (p. 51 – 52),

“…the project {faith-based initiatives] was self-defeating as a concept because the close relationship between government and faith-based groups almost inevitably leads, first to a growing dependency of the faith-based organization on the government, and, eventually, to the effective secularization of the faith-based group. In the words of David Kuo, President George W. Bush’s special assistant for faith-based initatives, ‘Between Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services alone, for example, more than $1.5 billion went to faith-based groups every year. But their activity had come at a spiritual cost. They were, as organizations, largely secular.'”

Or even just consider the title of the book David Kuo wrote after serving with President Bush’s faith-based initiatives: Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. He did not come away from his service of these programs full of hope about what they could do for America. He came away with a warning about the spiritual cost of mixing federal funds with religious institutions.

In the beginning, the money looks nice. In the beginning, it doesn’t even seem like there are all that many strings. You have to report yourself to the government. That alone accounts for increased regulation in eleven states. The money you receive cannot exceed your actual cost of homeschooling, but how is that determined? Does that mean you then have to keep receipts and turn them in? And how long will it be before only approved curriculum will be accepted?

The law spells out that this money follows the student and is not a grant to the institution, most likely in an attempt to get around directly funding private, religious organizations. But how long will that hold up? Hillsdale College in Michigan received no federal funding directly, but because it accepted students who had federal grants, the Supreme Court ruled against them in an almost decade long battle with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Because accepting a student who has federal money is the same as accepting federal money.

We already have models for what happens when private organizations take federal money. They become increasingly dependent on that money and, worse, they become more and more like government programs through the inevitable regulation that follows. And whether the money goes directly to the school or follows the student, we already have a Supreme Court ruling setting precedent for how much control that gives the government over the operations of otherwise private institutions.

Why would we want to accept that level of control? That’s why I believe we should keep the money out of homeschooling and keep homeschooling free.

And if you’re wondering why we can’t just refuse the money, I wrote more on that here: The Choices in Education Act: Why not just refuse the money?

Reflections on the Berlin Wall in pictures and cartoons

Now that Monica Crowley is to serve on the National Security Council in President Elect Trump’s administration, an old tweet has been making the rounds again.



She says people missed the point. I’m not sure what her point was. I don’t know if it was an odd bit of sarcasm or a complete misunderstanding of the historical significance of the wall she was standing next to.

The wall that worked.

But that isn’t really what this post is about. I stood near where Crowley was standing. My thoughts were very different.


Two years after that wall came down, I stood in its shadow. For me, as a child of the Cold War, it was not a smiley selfie moment. It was one of quiet reflection. I felt much as I did standing at Bergen Belsen, the concentration camp where Anne Frank died. There, standing in the shadow of this historic monument, I saw what governments were willing to do to control their people.

The Kiss
“My God help us survive this deadly love” From a famous photograph of Brezhnev and Honecker’s “socialist fraternal kiss” that many thought was a little too “passionate.”

This wall that stood between East and West, between totalitarianism and liberty divided a nation, a continent and a world. East and West. That’s all I had ever known, and one night, the people tore it down. Because once the people realized the guards weren’t going to shoot and the dogs weren’t going to attack, the bit of concrete that stood between them and freedom didn’t prove to be much of a barrier at all.


But I was also there two years after it came down. Two years was long enough for the euphoria to wear off. People weren’t toasting their victory with champagne and passing out money and care packets to people spilling over the wall and through the gates anymore. Once every person who made it across was hailed a hero. Now, they were all a nuisance. Germany was coming to grips with what it meant to graft this second world nation onto their own economic powerhouse. Germany has always prided itself on its social market economy, but now their resources were being drained by these . . . leeches. Unemployment was skyrocketing. The public koffers were draining. And what had the East Germans ever done but take?

"Where the state ends, life begins."
“Where the state ends, life begins.” Graffiti across from the monument.

There was a joke going around we had all heard. “It’s time to build another wall . . . but 10 meters higher.

Reunification cartoon
“Hurry! Before West Germany builds a wall!”

And another wall was being built. But this one wasn’t made of concrete and barbed wire. It was in the hearts and minds of Germans, looking down on their neighbors, not trusting their economic superiority to these outsiders, not entirely accepting of these intruders as Germans.

German reunification
“State of the nation.” The Ziggy-like figure is “the German Michel,” the symbol of Germany, much like our own Uncle Sam.

Now they were Ossies.

And I only ever heard that word used as a perjorative.

Even my civics teacher who had devoted an entire semester to “Die Wende” (The Turning Point — refers to the events in East Germany leading up to the collapse) made very clear that “reunification” was a misnomer. Germany was being unified, not reunified, because it had never existed prior to this moment. East and West were not being reunited. They were being spliced together.

Note how there are two German Michels? And one intends on moving in with the other. The hugging will only last so long . . .

And somewhere in there is what the wall means to me today. The monolith of my childhood. An art gallery in Berlin. A moment in time where two people became one. A reminder that our political dreams often look very different when we achieve them. A symbol of oppression. A symbol of triumph.

A reminder that walls can be torn down. Even between East and West, Red and Blue.

Because at the end of it all, East and West did become one. One Germany. One people.

(Note: The photographs are my own. The political cartoons are from “Die Wende in der DDR” which was published by the German government and hence –to my understanding–free to use with attribution.)


Can civility be saved?

This last election was . . . interesting.

The Case for Civility

I know there was a lot at stake. I mean, it was to decide the fate of the entire free world. That is bound to get someone a little upset.

My view has always been that if you are looking to the executive branch of the United States government to solve our problems, you are probably looking in the wrong place. Not just because I am hesitant of governmental solutions in general, but because our president just doesn’t have that kind of power.


And once he does, that will be the problem.

Watching the election and chatting with people online, it really seemed to me that the last fifteen years (give or take) of blogs and social media shouting out their inciteful (as opposed to insightful) commentary prepared us for this election. People don’t talk to each other. They talk past each other. They put each other in little boxes based on their politics or their religion or their dietary choices. They demonize each other.

They rarely communicate with each other.

And that’s why I was so excited when I stumbled across The Case for Civility by Os Guinness. I love Os anyway, but the premise of his book (that perhaps our greatest threat is the decline in civility!), resonates with me. Republics fall from within and we are set on a course to tear ourselves apart.

So I started a book discussion on facebook and would love if you would join us. The first discussion starts this Friday (January 6) with chapter one. Don’t worry if you can’t get the book by then. It is a pretty light chapter, mostly just outlining where he is going. Stop in, read the discussion and add your thoughts. We’d love to have you join us!

(This post contains an affiliate link which means that, should you actually purchase the book through the provided link, I will receive a few cents.)