On the final full day of the conference, Chicago’s clouds blocked the sun, but that did not dampen the mood at the Sheraton Grand as attendees gathered for the final full day of conference activities. The Exhibit Hall hosted a Saturday morning “Perk Up,” providing a much needed caffeine boost as sessions began for the day.
Saturday’s city tours brought attendees across the city, both on bus and by foot. The Chicago Race Riot of 1919 Commemoration Project offered a tour of Bronzeville and Bridgeport to learn about the history and legacy of the Red Summer and the resilience of the Black community in greater Bronzeville. For those interested in Chicago’s architecture, the Millenium Park walking tour offered attendees the chance to explore the park and surrounding area. Attendees also had the chance to visit the newly opened National Public Housing Museum, the first museum in the country dedicated to the history of public housing. Conference attendees, including OAH President David Blight, also attended a rally at Daley Plaza as part of the national day of action in protest of the Trump administration.
The JAH staff are back one more time from Chicago to bring you summaries from the events of the third day of the conference.
This morning, Allison Efford (Immigration and Ethnic History Society) chaired the panel, “Migration, Race, and Borders in the Twentieth Century: Recent Scholarship,” with presentations by Nathan Ellstrand (San Diego State University), Miguel Giron (Northwestern University), Caitlin Kennedy (University of Maryland, College Park), Shiyong Lu (New York University), Michael Salgarolo (New York University), and Carlotta Wright de la Cal (University of California, Berkeley). Ellstrand’s paper analyzed the Mexican Sinarquismo movement, the National Synarchist Union (UNS), and its spread to the United States between 1936–1966. The project is one of the first to analyze the spread of the UNS in the United States, and Ellstrand explained how it happened through coalition building between conservative Mexicans and religious white Americans. Giron shifted the discussion to an analysis of the San Diego–Tijuana borderlands and described how this region is important to understanding the rise of neoliberalism and economic exchange between the United States and Mexico. By analyzing how businesses influenced government border policies to favor their companies’ transnational flow of goods, Giron argued that these efforts politicized the U.S.-Mexico border in significant ways during the late twentieth century. Kennedy’s paper examined the lynching of Italian Americans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. While most scholars only study select cases, Kennedy adopted a national frame, telling a broader story of Italian-American immigration, extralegal violence, and reparation during this period. Lu—interested in how the trope of Jewish people going to Chinese restaurants on Christmas began—discussed the origins of Jewish-Chinese interactions through food in the twentieth century. Departing from scholarship that has focused more on Jewish customers, Lu examined why Chinese restaurant owners were interested in attracting Jewish customers and how both groups used these interactions to situate themselves in U.S. society. Salgarolo’s presentation analyzed one of the earliest Filipino-American communities in the United States—St. Malo, Louisiana—founded by runaway Filipino sailors. Salgarolo showed how Filipino migration to Louisiana was a result of nineteenth-century imperialisms and that St. Malo was one of the earliest sites of racial formation of Filipino Americans in the United States. Wright de la Cal wrapped up the panel by presenting research on how railroads facilitated corporate control of the U.S-Mexico borderlands and how Indigenous and Mexican American workers used their positions to resist increasingly strict border policies. The panel provided an excellent array of new scholarship on border and racial formation in U.S. history.
In the afternoon, Nicholas L. Syrett (University of Kansas) chaired the panel, “Learning to Be a Man: How Culture Shaped Masculine Norms in the First Half of the Twentieth Century,” with presentations provided by Molly Brookfield (Sewanee: The University of the South), Matt Villeneuve (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Dalen Wakeley-Smith (Washington University in St. Louis). Brookfield’s research discussed the normalization of ogling, or cat-calling, among U.S. servicemen in the 1930s to 1940s. Brookfield argued that—because of cartoons and other widely distributed ephemera during World War II—ogling became seen as a safer normative performance of white masculinity among veterans than possible sexual relationships that risked the transfer of venereal diseases. Villeneuve told the story of the Indian boarding school of Morris, Minnesota, and how the promotion of the Native baseball team assisted efforts of “Americanizing” Native people and defining their masculinity. Villeneuve stated that many tried to create baseball games as a masculine space, with female viewers denoted as “squaws” and female players as more manly. Finally, Wakeley-Smith presented on “Gypsy Kings” as a part of efforts to make Roma men be perceived as both American and masculine. Despite these efforts, Wakeley-Smith concludes that Roma stereotypes, which emphasized Roma criminality and amorality, still persist. Syrett concluded the panel with a discussion about how all three projects considered how masculinity was defined and what its impacts were in the early twentieth century.
Attendees had the chance to meet with publishers in the Exhibit Hall. Photo by Andrew Cooper.
During the last session of the day, attendees gathered for the Graduate Student Research Lightning Round. Chaired by Suzanne Sinke (Florida State University), the panel saw five graduate students at various stages of their dissertation work sharing brief overviews of their research. Hailey Brink (University of Oregon) opened the session with her work examining Black women settlers in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Oregon, using decolonial feminist approaches to tell a story of eco-womanism that can counteract narratives of white pioneerhood. Lee Gray (University of Oregon) followed, describing his research about military base Fort Lawton in Seattle and how the relationship between the city, the army, and the Seattle business community opens up questions about public space and the role of the federal government in the West during the early twentieth century. Marissa Hull (University of California, Riverside) shared her work on the intersections of gender and disability in the nineteenth-century United States, focusing in particular on the historical contributions and archival representations of nineteenth century d/Deaf women. Yuan Yan (University of Cambridge) discussed her research on U.S.-China relations during the Cold War and the role played by American Sinologists in influencing U.S. policymaking, combining intellectual and diplomatic history to trace the rise and fall of these academics. Finally, Emma Wathen (University of Wisconsin–Madison) described her work on how disabled parents challenged state and societal barriers toward their parenthood, carving a space for themselves as parents through different advocacy organizations and activism. Attendees then participated in a thoughtful and generative Q&A session, discussing the themes of biography, theory, methodology, gender, and class that arose in the panelists’ work.
Elsewhere, during “Reckoning with Venus: Loss, Repair, and Black Feminist Storytelling,” chaired by LaKisha Simmons (University of Michigan), panelists Erica Duncan (New York University), Stephanie Lumsden (University of California, Santa Cruz), and Taryn Marcelino (University of California, Los Angeles) presented their research, which spoke to the role of stories in the archives and the role of storytelling in history and related fields. Duncan’s paper focused on Black women and their families in the Bahamas who sought the confirmation of their freedom in legal courts at the turn of the nineteenth century. Many of these women created networks of witnesses to their freedom; these networks served as legal evidence to affirm their free status. These networks, Duncan argued, are part of the counter-archives of freedom which disrupt the “normative” narrative of subjugation. Lumsden shared research and theoretical work from her current work in progress, which seeks to put Black feminist scholarship in conversation with Native scholarship—she sees storytelling as a place of potential connection between these fields. Lumsden’s work focuses on the ways that the white settler state in California sought to legitimize itself and its ability to enact violence on Native and Black communities. By analyzing settler newspaper articles and anti-Native legislation through this lens, Lumsden explained, it becomes clear that anti-Blackness is so critical to state formation in the United States that one must consider it when thinking about the carceral settler state in California and across the country. Finally, Marcelino shared their research on the role that Memory of Overseas—an activist organization located in Nantes, France—currently plays in pushing toward a new public history of Nantes, a major French port in the transatlantic slave trade. The group, in Marcelino’s estimation, calls on the French government to recognize the role that Blackness and race in general plays in France’s imperial legacy, influenced by the role that race plays in modern American politics, especially in the period since the murder of George Floyd.
Late in the afternoon, Leah Wright Regiueur (John Hopkins University) chaired the panel, “State of the Field: American Political History,” with thoughts shared by Brent Cebul (University of Pennsylvania), Lily Geismer (Claremont McKenna College), Nicole Hemmer (Vanderbilt University), and Rachel Sheldon (Penn State University). All the panelists provided valuable insights about the direction of the field over the past ten years, how multiple other subfields have been more thoroughly included in political history scholarship, and what the future holds for new research. Hemmer began by arguing that there remains a need to study the political history of media in the twentieth century and how it assisted in state building throughout the century. While historians have studied the effects of media during the nineteenth century far more thoroughly, scholarship of the twentieth century leaves room for understanding how the media was potentially integral to the Cold War state, the decline of political party participation, and the rise of authoritarian politics. Sheldon concurred and added that the study of federalism and how its institutions function is also essential for future study. Geismer suggested that historians should do more to respond historiographically to surprising electoral outcomes and take on topics typically relegated to political science—such as campaign finance, party organization, state legislatures, and the courts. Cebul observed that there has been a decline in civic virtues, a robust political culture, and its organizations that typically represented American democracy, urging political historians to study this “democratic deskilling” to better understand current political developments. In the final comments, Regiueur remarked that all the panelists agreed on the importance of studying the mechanisms of political institutions and how citizens’ participation in democracy changed over time. Additionally, all observed that the current political moment calls on historians to explain how American democratic systems and constitutional interpretations developed over the past forty years.
Introduced by incoming OAH President Annette Gordon-Reed, David Blight’s 2025 OAH Presidential Address, “Historians’ Voices in Times of Peril,” spoke to the role history and historians play in American society in the midst of attacks from the current administration on education, history, museums, and libraries. Blight called these attacks an act of political war on the historian’s profession and on those in the public sphere who value history. “In other words,” he said, “Trump has declared war on free minds and free education.”
Trump, he argued, is leading a “revisionist movement” with the authors of Project 2025, who aim to attack, break down, and destroy the Department of Education, public schools, colleges and universities, and the free teaching of history in the United States. He described the strategy of the current administration as one of creating a new history of “national shame” by breaking institutions and silencing historians. “But we cannot and will not be silent!” he insisted.
OAH President David Blight (Yale University) speaking to conference attendees in his Presidential Address, “Historians’ Voices in Times of Peril.” Photo by Andrew Cooper.
Blight declared that the role of historians is not always to be activists, but rather to stay on the offensive against attacks on truth, democracy, and the profession of history in the current era. “We cannot fight with our usual restraint, subtlety, or even facts,” he said. “This will not be a civil debate.” Historians and museum professionals—along with other allies in the public and in academia—must unite around a commitment to truth to fight back against attacks on knowledge. “Sometimes we surprise ourselves with just how relevant we [historians]actually are,” Blight remarked. He urged historians to be vigilant and mobilize in the fight against attacks on the profession. Those like the current administration who seek to infiltrate and break down institutions like museums, colleges, and universities cannot be allowed into these spaces, lest they create chaos and destruction. “We will have to prepare to fight them by the means we possess,” he declared.
“But just what fight are we [historians]willing to mount?” Blight wondered. Though he admitted that he did not have all the answers at the current moment, he reflected on the need to stand united against the enemies of history and education. “Don’t [let them]seize the few… institutions we have that try to speak for all of us.” He advised historians to engage in these battles where they occur, even if it means going into spaces dominated by those who do not value history and education. “We’ve got to find that enemy and engage them,” he declared. Nonetheless, he said, historians must maintain the ethical ties and moral imperatives that unite the profession if they aim to protect it.
The dilemmas that face the modern profession are not new, Blight commented. Thinking about the Nazi rise to power, Blight advised that knowledge of the past can be empowering and perhaps—despite the fear it might engender—offer hope.
“Right now we have a socio-political responsibility as historians,” Blight declared. Blight emphasized that, although professional historians and educators may get bogged down by the realities of education and looming deadlines, there is great need for strategies in combating the current pushback against education and learning. “We… have to find ways to become a collective effort,” he insisted, calling for a coalition of the defenders of history between professional historian associations, library associations, and museum educator associations, among others.
Ending with a call to action, Blight urged historians to go out and connect with the public on traditional news shows and digital media such as podcasts, which, as he pointed out, are currently dominated by right-leaning voices. He stressed the importance of reaching out to the parents of young people, lobbying Congress, and defending funding programs like the Fulbright U.S. Student Program. Reflecting on the difficulties that Marc Bloch, founding member of the Annales school, faced in the twentieth century, including the world wars and intense antisemitism, Blight encouraged historians to keep working and fighting, no matter the challenges and distractions. Blight left his audience with much to think about, especially about the patriotism inherent in the historical craft and the importance of perseverance in the face of continued attempts to silence the profession.
Following Blight’s Presidential Address, OAH members gathered for the annual OAH business meeting, where members voted on a resolution to oppose scholasticide in Gaza, which passed. Non-members were invited to observe the proceedings. Afterwards, all attendees were invited to the President’s reception, where people enjoyed more good food and conversations.
On Sunday, attendees had the opportunity to join special workshops on topics like mentorship, public history in K–12 classrooms, and professional development for community college faculty.
As the conference wrapped up, the staff of the JAH reflected on some of their favorite parts of the week in Chicago. We enjoyed meeting fellow academics at all stages of their careers, finding cozy spaces for important conversations, reconnecting with old friends, getting a taste of Chicago cuisine, chatting with people outside of panels, and working together to capture the spirit of the conference.
From all of us to all of you, signing off for now.
