Every person I know needs to hear what these authors are saying: the way we evaluate others (this article addresses an employer setting, but it’s just as true for the classroom) is almost 100% wrong. Research can show us how to give feedback in ways that promotes growth and excellence in others rather than shutting them down.
Seriously, it’s a great article. It’s so great, I’m not going to tell you anything else about it so you have to go read it. 😉
As of today’s post, the article is not behind a paywall.
I’ve been reading a lot lately about General George C. Marshall. If you’ve heard of him, either 1) you grew up with me in Fayette County, PA and saw his name on the highway sign but didn’t know why, and/or 2) you have heard of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe in 1947-49 in the wake of total destruction from the war.
Source: VMI
What I didn’t know (but Coart did, and he put me on to reading more about Marshall) is just how integral General Marshall was in creating the US military organization we have today, and establishing a US foreign policy for the Cold War era that might avoid hawkish bloodlust for destruction.
As Army Chief of Staff, Marshall transformed the US Military in 5 years from a woefully underfunded and unprepared force to the global powerhouse that punched the Nazis in the face. To list his accomplishments would require more words than you’re probably willing to read right now.
What really matters is that General Marshall was apparently one of the most incredible people. His unmatched personal integrity allowed him to unite a viciously divided Congress behind urgent causes like drafting men into the army in 1940 when most of America wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war (but Marshall knew it would come for us), or getting $2 billion in funding for the Manhattan Project (atomic bomb) despite not being able to tell the congressmen what the money would be for, or convincing Congress to spend half a BILLION dollars a month in 1947-48 to enact the recovery program for Europe. His personal integrity anchored his reputation and people trusted him.
He was probably the finest organizational leader, personnel developer, and military strategist of the 20th century…maybe in America’s history. Churchill called him the architect of Allied victory in WW2. Time put him on the cover of Man of the Year twice in the 40s. He is likely the only active military commander to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He trained or mentored 150 of the WW2 field commanders (and higher) who supervised multiple field armies and led millions of men to victory.
Some viewed him as austere and aloof; his close peers saw his kindness, generosity toward others, deep concern for human life, love for the front-line soldier, and dry humor. The more I’ve read, the more impressed I am, and the more I wish we had leaders around right now who could muster even a slice of his strength of character, dedication to the Constitution, and wisdom.
I’ll post a couple recommended reads below, if you want to put a book on your Christmas list.
PS. For my hometown peeps – Marshall’s dad founded coke ovens in Dunbar, Fairchance, and Cheat Lake, and built his brickworks on what became the Pechins parking lot. His family lived just off the National Pike near the historic inn, not far from Jumonville / Fort Necessity, and they summered up in the mountains nearby. He did survey work on Chestnut Ridge and fished the Yough (maybe near Ohiopyle?) He left PA to attend VMI and never really returned except for a couple visits, but I feel like he’s got the stamp of Western PA all over him. Go listen to a video clip of him testifying before Congress….. I know that accent. 😉
Jumonville, PA was near Marshall’s home place and he fished, hunted, and played in this vicinity during his boyhood years from 1880-1898, when he left to attend VMI.
An excellent 90-min overview of Marshall that really highlights both his brilliance as well as his humanness.
The Marshall Foundation & Library offers a wealth of excellent resources. You can read plenty about Marshall’s work and biography, watch recorded lectures from visiting historians, and access quite a bit about Marshall’s life.
Ed Cray wrote a solid and informative one-volume biography of Marshall using many of the sources assembled by Forrest Pogue, Marshall’s official biographer who wrote four volumes. I don’t have time to read 5,000 pages. If you don’t either, then I recommend this one. It’s clear and easy to follow.
Jonathan Jordan is an amateur historian and practicing lawyer in Georgia who loves to write well-respected historical accounts. Go, Jonathan! This is the book I ordered my father-in-law for Christmas. It’s very very readable — almost to the point it would make career historians a wee bit nervous by how he leans hard into the storytelling part of history, and maybe filling in some details in between the facts. But it’s a really good read about how FDR, Marshall, CNO King, and Sec. of War Stimson found a way through the infighting and bureaucracy to hold the Allies together during the darkest years of the 20th century. I think you’ll like it, whether you’re a “history person” or not.
-Coart recommends Rick Atkinson’s An Army at Dawn * if you want to read a more holistic discussion of just how completely unprepared America was in 1939 for a global war. (Again! That’s what Marshall complains about in his WW1 memoir! We learned nothing!) Atkinson’s first of three volumes (the other two are out as well) covers the North Africa campaign.
– Marshall & His Generals * by Stephen Taaffe — I watched Taaffe give an excellent lecture on how Marshall selected top commanders for the European & Pacific theaters, and how well those men performed overall during the war. Taaffe’s book is a combination of individual biography and overview of the major campaigns of World War II. Along the way, he offers analysis of how well each commander performed his duties in advancing the war effort and the interpersonal drama that surrounded some of them. It’s a neat lens if you’re interested in leadership studies.
Check your library for these:
–Marshall — Memoirs of World War I (1917-1919) — he asked that this manuscript be destroyed because he was so careful to remain politically neutral, and any military decision is eventually political or politicized. But his stepdaughter found this in the attic in the 70s and published it. If you’re into WW1 history, you’ll find it interesting. Young Marshall (he was a Captain when he went over; left as a Colonel I think) cut his teeth on the incredibly difficult logistical and organizational problems of making the US military a modern fighting force in the midst of trench warfare and horrible fighting. He would do that all again in 1939, and this shows you how he took in information, made decisions, experienced the war.
-Katherine Marshall – Together: Annals of an Army Wife — George’s second wife Katherine was his companion throughout the difficult 1930s-50s (his first wife died after they were married like 25 years). I really like her short book; it’s a nice window into a man who was so private and self-disciplined that people thought he was cold. Nope. Marshall had a great sense of humor and was really personable to all types of people — all while being a rather imposing military commander. Her account is very sweet.
–Forrest Pogue wrote 4 volumes of Marshall biography; the library will probably have them. Overkill? I prefer a more condensed analysis, but he’s got a billon details if you want them.
I did read through much of the one-volume transcripts of Pogue’s Marshall interviews, and enjoyed seeing Marshall tell his own memories in his own words. You’ll get all of the best bits in any of the standard biographies, but academic libraries probably have this work.
*These links go to Amazon. I get like a fraction of a penny from affiliate links, so click ’em if you want to tip me. 😉
My Monday morning reads brought me to this article about the tenacious women blogging about sexual abuse in SBC and other conservative Evangelical churches. It is a must read.
I have many thoughts, but I’ll boil it down to just these at the moment:
Women (and children) (and anyone marginalized) are in danger anywhere women are shut out of the power structures in an organization.
I have a post halfway written about the problem Evangelicalism faces from institutionalized, theologically-justified patriarchy. Despite OT and NT examples of women in leadership positions, conservative theology does not make room for women to hold power and exercise authority outside of very narrow realms. As a result, leadership within conservative churches are blind to how abuse happens (and many women are themselves complicit in protecting abusers and shaming victims).
I applaud the brave women who have stepped up to review, investigate, and record stories of (mostly) women who were raped or abused by pastors (usually as children, but not always) and have lived traumatized lives while the pastors moved on to greater glory and continued employment in the ministry. The loose denominational structures of many Evangelical groups allows predators to flourish, but they run unchecked because they are protected and apologized for by leadership in those churches. In fact, it’s far more likely for the women telling the stories (or recording them, as these bloggers do) to get shoved out than for their abusers to be brought to justice.
You can’t impose enough church policies to prevent sexual predation. In fact, without opening the power structure to women as equals, I don’t think the conservative church will be able to eradicate this problem from its institutions.
In addition to leadership failure and lack of oversight and accountability, Evangelicalism perpetuates a victim-blaming tendency baked into its theology about sex. This article is a great overview of the destructive impact of purity theology on young women: Naked and Ashamed: Women and Evangelical Purity Culture – The Other Journal
But leaders could at least choose to listen, acknowledge, repent for harboring abuse, and change policies to support victims.
It’s the morning after an election in America, and the pundits have only just begun to wag their jaws about the implications of yesterday’s voting. Blue wave? Red wave? Referendum on Trump?
I’m not here to discuss it, y’all. I’m done.
I’m at the stage in the breakup with Evangelicalism where all the ways in which my former lover acts like an ass confront me. Especially when I’m trying not to think about it.
It’s like when you run into the friend of an ex, and he tries to make the argument that “Bobby is a great guy, you know?” as if that made Bobby’s douchey behavior toward you irrelevant. “I mean, he’s trying, ok?”
As if rampant nationalism, racism, xenophobia, a lust for power, and idolatry of individualism and the “self-made man” and capitalism weren’t warts on the face of the Gospel. “Evangelical” literally derives from the Greek word that we translate “Gospel,” euangelion. What’s sad is that I see the clear connection between evangelicals’ theology and their actions at the voting booth, arising from deep-seated racial and cultural fears, and from long-standing racism that’s buried so deep into evangelical culture that it’s hard to notice unless you tune your eyes to see it.
I’ve realized that I’m well and truly over this breakup. I have nothing against “Bobby’s” friends. I’m not severing ties with anybody. I don’t need other people to agree with me or follow me out. You do you, and stand before God with a clear conscience for your own actions.
I’m still puzzled, though I’ve given up trying to understand.
Like how the hell Evangelical women can feel like this for a man who belittles and demeans women almost non-stop:
I don’t need my Evangelical friends to explain why they picked the side of the “culture war” that makes as its goal the disenfranchisement of non-cisgender, non-heterosexual people….. or rejection of people seeking asylum and respite from oppressive regimes whose origin is closely tied to over-zealous American foreign policy…. or an absolute loyalty to an anti-abortion stance above actual policies that reduce abortion.
Or how the combination of these Culture War factors drive intense support for a president whose “base” is energized by race-baiting and xenophobia.
“There is no fear in Love, for perfect love casts out fear,” as the Apostle John wrote. I can’t sanction refusing to see beyond apparent moral infractions to take care of people in need.
“Who is my neighbor?” Jesus shut down that sanctimonious shit from the Pharisees. You can’t play games with the great commandments. Love God and Love your neighbor. You don’t get to choose not to love because you’re afraid of who they are, because they got pregnant without being married first, because you don’t approve of gay love, because you don’t like their atheism or Islam, because you think they’re lazy and unmotivated.
When asked about hate crimes, Fred Rogers asked this question.
Her graduate thesis focused on hate crimes, and she interviewed Fred Rogers as part of her research. He asked her this question: “Is your neighbor worth loving?”
Cuts to the heart of the issue, methinks.
I live in one of the reddest states in the South. South Carolina Republicans won nearly every race yesterday, with only a couple exceptions. (Article)
It’s hard to believe in change when the momentum around uniting Jesus with the GOP is like digging something out of cured concrete.
But I have faith.
My faith in the core tenets of Christianity informs my priorities, and voting is actually about priorities rather than moral absolutes. I believe that many Americans can learn to see a way to vote for priorities that don’t disenfranchise others in our nation.
As an American, I believe in the core values established by our Founders and refined through our history that prioritize the freedom of the individual to choose for themselves in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. But we must also question our assumptions as Americans to ensure our system does not become a tool for abuse in the hands of the wealthy or powerful, or that individualism does not become a tidal force tearing apart our communities.
People have the right to make their own choices until those choices begin to harm others. The role of government includes negotiating boundaries between competing claims to protect the rights of citizens who would be unduly harmed by someone else’s exercise of rights. These discussions must consider hidden harms reverberating still from America’s history of racism, slavery, imperialism, sexism, and xenophobia.
As a Christian, I believe that caring for my neighbor trumps raw issues of power or money, meaning that I’m willing to lay the burden of protecting vulnerable people on the backs of those who have resources, like taxing individual wealth or corporate profit and using that money to fund health care or social programs. However, government programs cannot fix core social issues. Only deep and difficult community development work will solve those.
As a Christian, I value life across the spectrum of human existence. And I believe that laws excel in defining justice but don’t do much to change human behavior. Complex issues require complex, multifaceted solutions. For this reason, I refuse to be a one-issue voter. A single stance on a hot-button issue does not define an entire candidate.
I believe the responsibility of the majority is to protect the rights of the minority, even if that means giving ground on majority culture and rights. Those who are vulnerable or recovering from systemic oppression deserve greater protection than those who naturally enjoy the benefits of majority power. As an educated white Christian heterosexual woman, I acknowledge my privilege.
When I step into the voting booth, I do not see my vote as a simple statement of belief or a referendum on my conscience. My vote represents a series of pragmatic choices driven by issues that matter to the current cultural zeitgeist and to me as an individual. Therefore I will vote for imperfect candidates within the two-party system because that is the system we have. I do not refuse others the option of supporting a third-party candidate if they choose to do so, but I rarely find the outside candidates compelling.
Likewise, I exhort myself and others to offer charity toward others who vote under different priorities. I may disagree with someone’s press, assumptions, and priorities, but I vigorously uphold their access to a free and fair ballot. American civil discourse will improve only when we voters recognize that we share many of the same priorities (healthy citizens and functional communities, a strong infrastructure, just and fair laws, protection from harm). Where we differ is in the mechanisms for promoting those goals.
