Recasting history and sports workers at SCOTUS

Hello from I-5!

Today: another round in our long-simmering, passive-aggressive professional feud (journalists vs. historians), occasioned by two new pieces on how we talk about and apply the lessons of U.S. history. 

First, UCLA historian Robin D.G. Kelley in conversation with George Yancy in Truthout. They talk about the recent surge of interest in the 1921 Tulsa Massacre and what’s lost in our narrow focus on “Black Wall Street.” What does the Hollywoodification of race politics mean for working-class stories?

Second, Princeton historian Matt Karp’s “History as End” in Harper’s. Karp argues that U.S. history, typically the domain of the patriotic right, has been taken up increasingly by left-liberal journalists and historians, and in a noticeably pessimistic register.

Is public history too obsessed with “origins” and analogies? What are its dominant politics? Do stories of upward mobility play out differently for different groups? Do history and journalism inhibit forward thinking? Or should journalists and historians spend even more time talking about history?!

Finally, we weigh in on a new decision by the Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, the justices found in favor of college athletes in their case against the NCAA, paving the way for better compensation of student workers. Jay fantasizes about bribing players to join the Tarheels, Tammy comments on labor and antitrust politics, and Andy draws a—surprise!—historical analogy. 

This Saturday, join Jay, Andy, and Tammy (and other friends of the pod) for the Asian American Writers’ Workshop’s Page Turner conference! Register here, and use discount code: FRIENDOFAAWW!

Thanks for listening and reading! Help keep our mikes hot (and join our Discord!) at Patreon or Substack, and send questions and comments to [email protected] or @TTSGPod.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe