Underground Railroad legislation could boost education, tourism opportunities, supporters say
They say creation of the Illinois Freedom Trails Commission could increase educational opportunities into an important segment of American history largely unknown to many people, and perhaps boost tourism centered on the journeys of 'freedom seekers' through Illinois.
For many slaves escaping from Southern states, the Chicago area was a stopover on the way to Detroit and eventually into Canada, local researchers said.
Legislation creating the commission recently passed through the state Senate and could be taken up soon by the House, according to state Rep. Debbie Meyers-Martin, D-Matteson, chief co-sponsor in the House.
She was co-chair of the state's Underground Railroad Task Force, which helped get the legislation introduced.
Meyers-Martin said there are enormous amounts of information done by researchers throughout the state who could pour that into a central database should the commission be established.
'We would have the opportunity to inform the public about how Illinois was participatory in the Underground Railroad,' she said Friday.
Meyers-Martin said she learned, through her work with the task force, that Sauk Trail, now a busy road in her district, had been part of the freedom seekers' network.
The commission would have a chair and 10 members appointed by the governor, with the commission's goals including furthering research into the trail taken by freedom seekers, establishing an online database and biographical information about key persons identified with the Underground Railroad, according to the legislation.
The commission would work with the Illinois State Board of Education to develop an educational program available to all public schools, develop standards and guidelines for historic markers and signage, and explore heritage tourism opportunties.
Larry McClellan, who has researched the Underground Railroad for many years and is president of the Midwest Underground Railroad Network, said work will start this fall on 'a very modest' statewide network devoted to the history of the Underground Railroad. That would get underway in anticipation of the statewide commission being created.
'We're glad for the progress but we know it will take time,' McClellan said.
He helped establish Governors State University in University Park, where he taught for 30 years and is emeritus professor of sociology and community studies.
In the mid-1970s, he was village president of University Park, then called Park Forest South, and has been on the boards of the Illinois State Historical Society and the Will County Historical Society.
McClellan said the general public is largely unaware of the Underground Railroad and said there is much misinformation out there.
'The thinking is the Underground Railroad was a system set up by almost all white abolitionists, and that is just not the reality,' he said. 'Men, women, Black families and white families have all kinds of experiences with freedom seekers.'
Tom Shepherd is secretary of the recently renamed Midwest Underground Railroad Network, previously the Little Calumet River Underground Railroad Project.
The group has new office space inside South Holland's First Reformed Church and has expanded its scope, Shepherd said.
He said the Underground Railroad and journeys of freedom seekers 'is a piece of history that largely gets ignored in this area' despite Chicago's South Side and south suburbs being identified as home to safe houses and waystations for freedom seekers.
'A lot of escaped slaves came through this area, and we want to bring that story to people,' Shepherd said.
For the past few years, his organization has worked with the Cook County Forest Preserve District to conduct Underground Railroad history tours in the region, and this year's first was scheduled to take place Saturday.
'We have identified a number of sites that were safe houses or stopovers,' on the trail, he said.
Shepherd said many participants say they had previously had little to no knowledge about the existence of the Underground Railroad. He said that, through the commission, there could be a way to increase tourism centered around the travels of freedom seekers and identified sites on Chicago's South Side and in the south suburbs.
'We have this story right here in our back yard,' Shepherd said. 'So many people are unaware of this history and unaware of this movement of people through our area.'
His organization will work this summer with interns from the University of Chicago and Purdue University to do more research on potential historical sites in Illinois and Indiana.
If approved by the General Assembly and signed into law, the state commission legislation would put the new commission under the purview of the state Department of Natural Resources.
Meyers-Martin said she is hopeful the DNR will include funding in its budget for the commission, but was unsure how much might be needed initially, as the commission gets established.
McClellan said that 'we don't need a lot of money, but we really need a central office to help nurture things along.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Israel is making sure there is no one to document the horror of its war
Since the gruesome Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200 Israelis, Israel has waged a pitiless war in Gaza. More than 62,000 people have been killed, including some 18,500 children, according to local health authorities in what is considered by many experts to be an undercount. Most of the tiny enclave is now rubble; almost all of Gaza's 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes, many repeatedly. Since Israel ended the latest ceasefire in March, it has sharply curtailed the amount of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza. Most of its population, according to the United Nations, is experiencing or staring down starvation. Advertisement Amid so much suffering, the targeting of a single journalist may seem like an individual tragedy. But coming as Israel begins an all-out assault to capture Gaza City and as Benjamin Netanyahu has said he intends to occupy all of Gaza in the face of growing global condemnation, the killing of al-Sharif, like the killing in March of his fellow Al Jazeera correspondent Hossam Shabat, marks an ominous new phase in the war. Advertisement To justify its pitiless pulverizing of Gaza, Israel has endlessly invoked the threat of Hamas, supposedly lurking in schools, hospitals, homes and mosques. Now it has begun not only accusing individual journalists of being Hamas fighters but also openly admitting to killing them in targeted attacks, based on purported evidence that is all but impossible to verify. With Gaza closed to international journalists, this new campaign has created a pretext to eliminate the remaining journalists with the platform to bear witness and terrify anyone brave enough to attempt to take the place of the fallen. It has also exposed the cruel logic at the heart of Israel's prosecution of the war: If Hamas is everywhere, then every Palestinian in Gaza is Hamas. This is truly a war with no limits, and soon there may be no journalists left to document its horror. I have long been awed by the work of journalists who find their own homeland under attack. I spent years in war zones as a foreign correspondent, working alongside some of the bravest and finest journalists I've ever encountered. We were engaged in the same work, fundamentally: trying to help the world understand seemingly incomprehensible suffering. As an American employed by an American news organization, I stood on the same front lines in Congo, in Darfur, in Kashmir and elsewhere. But I would fly home to safety, while they would remain, struggling along with everyone else to survive. Advertisement We differed in another important way as well. I chose and pursued a career in journalism. For many reporters from war zones, the profession chose them. This was the story of Mohammed Mhawish, a young man from Gaza City. When Hamas attacked Israel, he was dreaming of a career in the arts. He had graduated from the Islamic University in Gaza, where he studied English and creative writing, and hoped to write literature and poetry. Instead, he found himself working as a journalist for Al Jazeera's English-language service. 'It was a feeling of obligation to my people and a responsibility to my hometown that was being destroyed in real time,' he told me. 'I never imagined myself being given the responsibility or assigned the responsibility to be writing through destruction and death and loss and tragedy.' Gaza City is a small place, so he got to know al-Sharif as they both struggled to cover the catastrophe unfolding around them. 'He was this really brave young person,' Mhawish told me. Before the war, his work had focused on culture and ordinary life. 'He reported on families having hope, families getting married, people celebrating life accomplishments, people just enjoying life on a daily basis. He never wanted or aspired to be a correspondent carrying a responsibility for his entire people.' Advertisement The work took a toll on al-Sharif. 'I remember many times where he was in public and sometimes personally with other colleagues of his in Gaza, just saying how hungry he was,' Mhawish said. 'How tired, how exhausted, how terrified and how scared -- he was really scared all the time. He was feeling that he was being watched and he's being hunted and he's being targeted.' Under international law, journalists are considered civilians. But since the beginning of the war in Gaza, at least 192 journalists have been killed, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (I'm on the organization's board). 'At some point, I had to abandon my press vest because it no longer provided me with the protection that I was seeking,' Mhawish told me. 'In fact, it functioned as a target on my back.' Mhawish left Gaza last year. Al-Sharif's death, coming after so many threats from Israeli military officials, was an especially devastating blow. 'At the end of the day, he chose to give the sacrifice of his life,' Mhawish said. 'I am really, really tired of grieving my friends and colleagues.' When the Saudi government murdered Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident columnist who wrote for The Washington Post, inside its consulate in Turkey, it created a global outcry. Russia's detention and killing of journalists have likewise provoked outpourings of support. If the governments bother to concoct accusations - of espionage and other crimes - to justify these heinous acts against working journalists, they are usually dismissed out of hand as the ravings of autocratic regimes bent on destroying free speech. The response to al-Sharif's killing, like that of scores of other Palestinian journalists, has been different -- more muted, more likely to give equal weight to Israeli accusations despite the lack of verifiable evidence. Mhawish told me he was dismayed to see so many news organizations around the world parrot Israeli claims that his friend was killed because he was a Hamas militant. 'What's heartbreaking about this is that it tells me that there are journalists in the world who are justifying the killing of other journalists,' he said. Advertisement This is another respect in which I, as a foreign journalist, was always perceived differently from the local journalists who worked alongside me in war zones. They knew far more than I did about events unfolding in their homeland. They understood how to move safely through dangerous territory and possessed essential contacts and expertise that helped enrich my coverage. Ideally, this leads to mutually beneficial and symbiotic relationships between local journalists and their international counterparts, who often hire locals to improve their coverage. But in some places, what might be seen as expertise comes to be viewed as something darker. As a foreigner, I tend to be seen as a neutral outside observer. A local reporter, embedded in her community and enduring the same hardships as her fellow citizens, comes under more scrutiny. She cannot help being blinkered, the thinking goes, by her own suffering and root for one side in the conflict she is covering. She is, surely, a partisan. In the remarkable new documentary '2000 Meters to Andriivka,' a pair of Ukrainian journalists accompany a group of Ukrainian soldiers through a narrow band of forest as they seek to recapture a village from Russian forces. It is a claustrophobic, harrowing film, unfolding in bunkers and foxholes. At one point the film's director, the Pulitzer- and Oscar-winning filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov, notes the parallel between himself, the journalist, and the young officer he is interviewing. Advertisement The soldier, Chernov says, picked up a rifle, while he picked up a camera. Through different means, each man sought to stand up for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine's people. Were Chernov, who works for The Associated Press, to be targeted or smeared by the Russian state, journalists the world over would not hesitate to rally to his side and dismiss any allegations against him as propaganda. I would be among the first to join any crusade on his behalf. It is in this context that we must consider Israel's contention that al-Sharif was a Hamas militant. The evidence offered to the public is weak, consisting of screenshots of spreadsheets, purported service numbers and old payments that have not been independently verified. 'The Israeli military seems to be making accusations without any substantive evidence as a license to kill journalists,' said Irene Khan, the United Nations' special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, when a different Israeli airstrike killed another Al Jazeera journalist and his cameraman last year. Al-Sharif reported on their deaths. In interviews before his own death, al-Sharif pleaded for help and safety. 'All of this is happening because my coverage of the crimes of the Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip harms them and damages their image in the world,' he told the Committee to Protect Journalists. 'They accuse me of being a terrorist because the occupation wants to assassinate me morally.' Even if one takes Israel's allegations at face value -- which I absolutely do not, given Israel's track record -- and entertain the idea that in 2013, at the age of 17, al-Sharif joined Hamas in some form, what are we to make of that choice? Hamas at that time had been the governing authority of his homeland since 2006. It ran the entire state apparatus of a tiny enclave. 'It is a movement with a vast social infrastructure,' Tareq Baconi, the author of a book about Hamas, has written, 'connected to many Palestinians who are unaffiliated with either the movement's political or military platforms.' Take it further and contemplate, based on Israel's supposed evidence, that al-Sharif had played some military role before becoming a journalist. The history of war correspondence is replete with examples of fighters turned reporters -- indeed perhaps the most famous among them, George Orwell, recorded soldiers' lives while fighting in the Spanish Civil War and became a war correspondent. These days, having served in the military is widely seen as an asset among American war reporters. Far from seeing those who served as hopelessly biased, editors rightly value the expertise and perspective these reporters bring from their experiences and trust them to prioritize their new role as journalistic observers. In Israel most young people are required to serve in the military, so military experience is common among journalists. Many will protest that Hamas is different from the military of a state. This is true. Long before its gruesome attack on Israel on Oct. 7, it engaged in horrifying terror tactics like suicide bombings that targeted civilians. Many countries, including the United States, consider it a terrorist organization. But it was the accepted authority in Gaza. Indeed, the uncomfortable truth is that Hamas owes much of its strength to Netanyahu's cynical policies, which, as the Times reported in 2023, included tacit support designed to prop up Hamas as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority. As late as September of that year, the month before Hamas attacked Israel, his government welcomed the flow of millions of dollars to Hamas via Qatar. 'Even as the Israeli military obtained battle plans for a Hamas invasion and analysts observed significant terrorism exercises just over the border in Gaza, the payments continued,' my newsroom colleagues wrote. 'For years, Israeli intelligence officers even escorted a Qatari official into Gaza, where he doled out money from suitcases filled with millions of dollars.' Freud theorized that hysterics were an extreme version of ordinary people experiencing outsize distress in exceptional circumstances. In this way, journalists are an extreme version of the curious person who lingers and tries to figure out what's going on when everyone else, sensing danger, has packed up their curiosity and gone home. What are journalists but unusual people who decide on society's behalf to witness the unbearable? They set aside their personal safety, and perhaps find strange thrills in the horrors of the work they do and the things that they witness. There can be a kind of moral deformity in this, to be sure, but it's an important and socially recognized role. Someone's got to send word back into history. In this regard, journalists are actually not that different from soldiers. Soldiers, after all, are ordinary people given minimal training, mostly how to use their equipment and the tactical ways that one does the job. And then they set off to do a monstrous task on behalf of the rest of us, something most of us cannot possibly imagine doing. This strange and seldom acknowledged kinship is what permits a pall of suspicion to fall over the work of journalists in war zones, especially local ones, who cannot help being caught up in the events unfolding around them. Using their chosen instruments and medium, they are engaged in a struggle to protect their home and their people. It is easy to see how the other side will seek to cast them as combatants, even if they carry no weapons. But that does not mean we should believe them. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Appeals court OKs termination of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua
An appeals court on Wednesday as permitted the Trump administration to continue with its plans to terminate deportation protections for tens of thousands from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua. File Photo by Sarah Silbiger/UPI | License Photo Aug. 21 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court is permitting the Trump administration to continue with its termination of deportation protections for tens of thousands of people in the United States from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua amid litigation. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approved the Trump administration's request for a stay pending appeal on Wednesday as it challenges a lower court's ruling that initially postponed the federal government's termination of Temporary Protected Status for those from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua until at least Nov. 18, when the next hearing is scheduled to test the merits of the case. The decision was unanimous. No reason was given. "This devastating and unexplained decision threatens families who have lived here for decades, raised U.S. citizen children, built businesses and become an integral part of our communities," National TPS Alliance, which brought the case against the Trump administration, said in a statement following the ruling. "But let it be clear: We are families, workers, neighbors. And despite this setback, TPS holders and allies will CONTINUE to fight for justice, permanent protections and the right to stay in the only home many of us have ever known." The ruling is a victory for President Donald Trump and his administration amid their crackdown on immigration as the American leader seeks to conduct mass deportations of non-citizens. "This is yet another huge legal victory for the Trump administration, the rule of law, safety of the American public," Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement. "TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades," she said, adding, "This unanimous decision will help restore integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe." Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, was established by Congress in 1990 to shield migrants in the United States from being deported to their home countries experiencing crises such as war, conflict or famine, where they would be put into harm's way. Honduras and Nicaragua were both granted TPS designation in January 1999, following the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch a year earlier, with Nepal receiving the designation in 2015, due to a destructive earthquake that hit the country that April. Some 60,000 people from the three countries are currently protected from deportation to their native nations because of TPS, many of whom have been in the United States for decades. Trump is attempting to dismantle TPS as part of his immigration crackdown. He announced it was ending deportation protections for those from Nepal in early June, doing the same for Honduras and Nicaragua in July. The designations were to be terminated Aug. 5 for Nepal and Sept. 8 for Honduras and Nicaragua. The Trump administration has argued that TPS was never meant to be a long-term solution and that the conditions in those countries have changed. On July 7, the National TPS Alliance sued the federal government, arguing the terminations were unconstitutional as the Trump administration failed to follow the necessary review process, while its reason for ending TPS was racially motivated. In late July, District Judge Trina Thompson issued a strongly worded decision postponing the termination of TPS for Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua until mid-November, stating: "The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty and the American Dream. That is all plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names and purify their blood." Following the ruling on Wednesday, Sandhya Lama, a TPS holder from Nepal, said she was "heartbroken" by the decision. "I've lived in the U.S. for years, and my kids are U.S. citizens and have never been to Nepal. This ruling leaves us and thousands of other TPS families in fear and uncertainty," she said in a statement. "We are families, workers and neighbors who have built our lives here. Despite this setback, we will continue to fight for justice." The Trump administration is also seeking to terminate TPS protections for Afghanistan, Haiti and Venezuela, moves that are also being challenged in court.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Chinese Officials Say They Won't Sell TikTok's Algorithm to US
This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter. Checking in on the TikTok-U.S. saga, with over 200 days passed since the official, Senate-approved TikTok sell-off bill went into effect. And things are not looking great, with the Chinese government reiterating that it has no intention of selling TikTok's algorithmic black box as part of any U.S. partnership deal. Via the state-media publication China Daily, the CCP says that the launch of an official White House TikTok account this week contradicts the focus of the sell-off bill, and the risks that the U.S. government is ostensibly seeking to protect against. The White House launched its own TikTok channel on Monday, and has already posted several updates to the app. Which has raised the ire of Chinese officials. As per China Daily: 'That the White House now has its own TikTok account undoubtedly contradicts the 'national security threat' rhetoric that claims ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government and that the app could be used to influence US citizens.' That's not entirely correct, as an official White House account in the app doesn't reduce the potential impact that Chinese-backed operations could be having in seeking to influence the opinions of Western users via the app. But nevertheless, the Chinese government has criticized the perceived hypocrisy of the White House presence, while also noting various other 'unwarranted security threat' allegations against Chinese companies. 'The electronics companies Huawei and ZTE, as well as those related to shipbuilding and port equipment, have also been unjustifiably targeted. DJI, a Chinese drone maker, was put on the US government's blacklist and then removed simply because its US clients could not find substitutes for its products.' Again, this is somewhat subjective, as the broader threat that TikTok poses may be in both data collection, while also using TikTok to amplify pro-CCP content, in order to sway opinions in its favor. Trump and Co. posting a few videos won't change this, with the Trump team merely seeing this as an opportunity to broadcast their message to younger audiences, and use the reach of TikTok to its benefit. So really, it's just more political propaganda in the app. But either way, the CCP has taken the opportunity to reiterate that it will not be selling TikTok with its algorithm any time soon. 'As Chinese foreign and commerce ministries' spokespersons have said on different occasions, the operation and acquisition of enterprises should be based on market principles and decided independently by the enterprises concerned. If Chinese enterprises are involved, they must comply with Chinese laws and regulations. Notably, the Chinese authorities have issued a catalogue of technologies prohibited and restricted for export. This explicitly prohibits the export of core technologies such as short video algorithms, drawing a red line for the TikTok transaction.' This has long been the CCP's stance, that even if it is able to negotiate a deal to keep TikTok in operation in the U.S., it's not selling the app's core algorithm, which is the key driver of TikTok engagement. Potential U.S. partners have been cautious in committing to a deal without the algorithm as a part of the package, while various alternatives have also been floated, including the possible development of a U.S. only version of the app, with a scaled-down algorithm based on the original (note: TikTok says that this is not happening). Would that be as effective? The key lure of TikTok is that it's so good at learning what you're interested in, every time that you log in, with your feed transforming before your eyes to better align with whatever catches your attention on a given day. The secret sauce here is in-depth entity identification within video clips, with each of those elements then cross-matched against a wide variety of signals from the app's billions of other users, both on TikTok and on Douyin, its Chinese sister app. That incorporates a range of in-video details, and TikTok's algorithm is seemingly much better at this process than Meta or other social media competitors. As such, it makes sense that TikTok would want to keep those details in-house, and away from others in the market. And at the same time, I suspect that TikTok's entity matching may include some identifiers that would be considered less acceptable under review, including notes on creators' physical traits. So there are several reasons why TikTok would want to keep this information secret, and away from U.S. ownership. And if the Chinese government sticks to this stance, it could mean that TikTok is indeed on a path to being banned in the U.S. Indeed, last month, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that the U.S. government will take a stand, and will be looking to implement a full ban TikTok on the app if a deal for its sale to a U.S. entity cannot be finalized by the current September 17th deadline. So we could be on a collision course, if both sides stick to their guns this time. Recommended Reading TikTok Highlights Female Creators and Brands for International Women's Day
