Featured Post from Otterbein University

The link between veterans coming home and racial violence in America. Our expert can explain.

Oct 7, 2019

3 min

There is a long history of white supremacist and white-power ideology developing out of the wars the United States has fought.


In Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America (Harvard University Press, 2018), Kathleen Belew shows that, beginning in the 1970s, a small but committed number of Vietnam War veterans took the racist understanding of the Vietnamese and Asians more broadly that the U.S. military taught them and became instrumental in building the current white-power movement. These vets often did not initially know each other, but they eventually built a wide variety of organizations: the White Aryan Resistance, the latest, post-Civil Rights Era iteration of the Ku Klux Klan, various Christian Identity and white skinhead organizations, and the militia movement of the 1980s and 1990s.


In his forthcoming book, Guarding the Empire: Soldier Strikebreakers on the Long Road to the Ludlow Massacre, Otterbein’s Dr. Anthony DeStefanis has found that the men who fought the Plains Indians in the late nineteenth century and who served in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American-Filipino War (1898-1902) came to understand Native Americans, Cubans, and Filipinos as formidable but racially inferior enemies. When these same men joined the National Guards in states across the country and were called out on strike duty during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, they took what they learned on the Plains and overseas to create a racist rationale for breaking the labor strikes of a working class that was increasingly made up of southern and eastern European, Mexican, and Asian immigrants. Many of these same men also joined the Second Ku Klux Klan that emerged in the late 1910s and became a nationwide organization by expanding the targets of its hatred beyond African Americans to include Jews, Catholics, and immigrants.


Racism is a many-headed hydra with multiple roots in experience at home and abroad. Some white southerners who were central in the project of creating and maintaining Jim Crow white supremacy were Confederate military veterans and it is clear that wars across the twentieth century – from Cuba and the Philippines to Vietnam – pushed some veterans into the white- power movement. Today, we know that white-power organizations concentrate on recruiting military veterans and we have seen a spike in support for these organizations among current members of the military. It’s no accident that some of these active troops and veterans served in the Iraq and Afghan Wars, where they faced a Muslim enemy with unfamiliar social and cultural practices, and who did not welcome the U.S. military presence with open arms. Clearly, we must reckon with what our wars overseas have brought back to the United States.


If you are a reporter covering this topic – let the experts from Otterbein University help.


Dr. Anthony DeStefanis is an associate professor of history at Otterbein University. He specializes in modern U.S. history with an emphasis on labor and the working class and immigration, race, and ethnicity. Dr. DeStefanis is available to speak with media regarding the history of racial violence in America – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.




You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Otterbein University

2 min

Higher education must rediscover the 'service ethic' of teaching

Earlier this autumn, Otterbein University hosted the Democratic National Congress for a debate of its presidential candidates.  All eyes from across America and around the world were on Otterbein and it was with that attention that the school’s president John Comerford weighed in with his thoughts on how leaders need to prioritize higher education. “Today the nation’s attention will shift to Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, as we host the next Democratic presidential primary debate. Questions will abound — of the candidates, between the candidates and, afterward, about who may or may not have “won” the night, all in the service of helping voters decide who might be best suited to lead. An important question that should be asked and won’t, however, isn’t for the candidates at all but for higher education: “Are you ready to lead?” Sadly, the answer is, “No.”  Make no mistake, I fully expect plenty of discussion about higher education at the debate — its high costs, student debt, workforce shortages and the difficulty of change. I just hope the candidates don’t hold back in calling to account higher education itself simply because we happen to be their hosts. There is plenty of blame to go around with the challenges in higher education today, and higher education institutions themselves own a fair share of it.  Perhaps no issue contributes more to higher education’s affordability problems than institutions’ — and parents’ — preoccupation with “prestige.” Exclusivity and selectivity are thought to be hallmarks of quality, which fosters a system that rewards institutions for perpetually raising admission standards and prices. The problem with this is that test scores — the most frequently-used metric for a student’s academic strength — generally track with a family’s income. Students from higher-wealth families have higher test scores and more frequently gain entrance to “selective” institutions, which steadily become less and less diverse.  To essentially segregate students by their parents’ income this way, however, is un-American and does nothing to enrich an education or advance quality in research or instruction. It is the inevitable product, though, of a mindset that “selective” and high rankings are the top priorities in higher education. This is a falsehood that needs to be turned upside down…” October 15 – The Hill The rest of the op-ed is attached – and it is well worth the read.  But if you are a journalist covering this topic or wish to learn more – then let us help. John Comerford is an expert in higher education, regional and national topics. He is the President of Otterbein University and is available to speak with media regarding higher education in America. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

3 min

White power, white supremacy, and violence – our expert explains how communication is key in perpetuating racial hatred in the United States

On August 3, 2019, a white power-inspired gunman killed 24 people and injured 22 others at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas. We tend to understand mass shootings as isolated events committed by “lone wolf” gunmen who might have mental health problems, but what we know about the El Paso gunman – as  well as the terrorists who carried out mass killings at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Center in Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019, the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, and at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015 – tell a different story. The evidence investigators have complied shows that these white-power terrorists had never met one another, but that they lived in an on-line world created by 4chan, 8chan, and white-power organizations’ websites, where they consumed racist ideas and propaganda that shaped their decision to kill African-Americans, Muslims, Jewish people, and Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. We also know that white-power terrorists have particular goals in mind. Message boards like 8chan reveal a competition among participants about who can top the number of people killed in the last mass shooting. There is also a strong belief expressed on-line that killing racial minorities will foment a race war and allow white-power advocates to create an all-white world. I describe these terrorists as advocates of white power because it is important to understand that “white power” and “white nationalism,” a term often used in the media to describe the perpetrators of recent mass killings and the movement that animates them, are not the same thing. White nationalism calls to mind an effort to shore up the interests of white people within the American nation as it currently exists. The white-power movement, on the other hand, imagines a transnational, Aryan nation of white people living in an all-white world after wiping out non-whites. This might sound far-fetched, but does not mean that those who carry out mass killings in pursuit of this goal are mentally ill. Rather, their actions are the result of a white-power ideology fostered and spread on-line. What is new about how white-power advocates communicate with each other is that some of it now happens on-line. Interaction between racists who never met one another, however, has a long history in the United States. Approximately 4,100 African Americans were lynched between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the 1960s. The white perpetrators of these lynchings lived hundreds of miles apart and often did not know one another, but they were united in a collective effort to enforce Jim Crow white supremacy in the American South (I use “white supremacist” here because white southerners who carried out lynchings did not, broadly speaking, subscribe to white power as the current movement defines it: the creation of a transnational, Aryan nation of white people living in an all-white world after wiping out non-whites). Lynchings were sometimes public events that drew hundreds or thousands of people with the purpose of “teaching” southern African Americans what would happen to them if they violated the rules of Jim Crow. Southern newspapers ran stories that justified lynchings; perpetrators took pieces of flesh, body parts, and hair from lynching victims as souvenirs and passed them around; and white southerners took lynching photographs, turned them into postcards, and mailed them to friends, family, business associates, and fellow travelers in the white supremacist movement. This racist community building had the goal of creating and maintaining white supremacy and, of course, it all happened without the help of the Internet. Communication, whether on-line or through the more traditional means has played an integral role in fostering and perpetuating racial violence and hatred. If you are a reporter covering this topic – let one of our experts help. Dr. Anthony DeStefanis is an associate professor of history at Otterbein University. He specializes in modern U.S. history with an emphasis on labor and the working class and immigration, race, and ethnicity. Dr. DeStefanis is available to speak with media regarding the history of racial violence in America – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

2 min

Fair Play: Sexual Violence and College Athletes

Since the 1990s, we have seen multiple high-profile, even fatal, cases of violence against women at the hands of male intercollegiate athletes. These events and others prompted the Office of Civil Rights to call upon universities to more appropriately investigate and sanction perpetrators of sexual assault. In April 2011, using Title IX as an imperative, the Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” (DCL) as a call for universities to more swiftly and adequately address incidences of sexual violence by students. As universities started implementing or revamping programs to reduce sexual violence on campus, it became obvious there was a lack of current research on college athletics to inform their decisions. This led me to conduct my own research on sexual assault within intercollegiate athletics. I wanted to understand the ways in which former college athletes understand sexual assault, as well as their perceptions of their athletic department’s response to occurrences and prevention.  My research on sexual violence was first published in 2015 and again in 2018. Based on this research, in 2017-2018, I implemented a sexual violence prevention program with athletes from a variety of sports: men’s and women’s basketball, wrestling, softball, football, and women’s golf and tennis. That program, Fair Play: Sexual Violence Prevention for Athletes, was created because many athletes are leaders on their campuses and in their communities. While some research shows that some male athletes may be at higher rates for perpetrating sexual assault, we know that the vast majority of athletes are good students who want to help keep their fellow teammates, students, and community members safe. Fair Play teaches athletes about sexual assault, consent, and rape culture in sports, helps them re-examine traditional gender norms and roles, and gives them tools and skills to intervene and stop sexual violence before it happens. With grant funding from the Ohio Department of Higher Education, we collaborated with Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio (SARNCO) to facilitate Fair Play. Research done to assess the efficacy of the program is forthcoming in two journals. However, data indicates that, after participating in Fair Play, athletes are less likely to believe in rape myths, have a better understand of consent, and are able to identify and stop the spread of rape culture. In addition, Fair Play participants reported increased knowledge and ability to engage in bystander intervention, which is aimed at preventing violence before it happens. Fair Play is effective in its depth and breadth – participants attend 10 hours of programming – as well as the unique and active learning environment targeted specifically for athletes.  Kristy McCray, Ph.D., is an Otterbein assistant professor in sport management and a former rape crisis center executive director. McCray’s program focuses on college athletes as some research indicates that male intercollegiate athletes are more likely to hold sexually aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Click on her icon at the top to get in touch with Kristy. 

View all posts
Powered by