The Problem of (Teaching) History: “1619” or “1776”?

This post is closely related to my June 19 article regarding critical race theory (CRT). Most of the legislation seeking to curtail the teaching of CRT has included criticism of The 1619 Project as well. CRT and “1619” both raise the question of how history is understood and taught.  

The Problem of Microhistory

Each one of us has our own personal history, which should, one would think, be rather straightforward and non-problematic. But in writing my life story, now available in print, some historical “facts” came under question. June did not remember some of our family history the same way I did.

The two siblings in Ann Patchett’s intriguing book The Dutch House (2019) discuss their family’s microhistory. One asks, “Do you think it’s possible to ever see the past as it actually was?” The other reflects on how we humans

overlay the present onto the past. We look back through the lens of what we know now, so we’re not seeing it as the people we were, we’re seeing it as the people we are, and that means the past has been radically altered (p. 45).

The Problem of Macrohistory

Recently I also read The Sense of an Ending (2011) by British author Julian Barnes. In that novel, one “high school” student remarks, “History is the lies of the victors.” The teacher retorts that “it is also the self-delusions of the defeated.”

At that point, the most brilliant student in the class says, rather cynically, “History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation” (pp. 16-17).

If that is true in personal or family history; it is especially true in writing macrohistory. But the problem is more than just the imperfections of memory and the inadequacies of documentation.

The most serious problem is the biases of the historians and the conscious or unconscious interpretation of past events for the benefit of a particular segment of society.

Thus, the squabble over The 1619 Project continues.

U.S. History: “1619” or “1776”?

In 2019, The New York Times Magazine published The 1619 Project, developed by journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and others.

The year 1619 was when the first African slaves set foot in North America. The 1619 Project, then, “aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative" (from this link).

The 1619 Project was strongly criticized by politicians such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (see here) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who proposed the Saving of American History Act of 2020 (see here), and especially by former Pres. Trump.

On the day before the 2020 presidential election, by executive order DJT established the 1776 Commission. Republican politicians continue to praise the flawed 1776 Commission report and to castigate The 1619 Project.

The “1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools” is being signed by numerous politicians, such as the two current Republican gubernatorial candidates in Kansas, who were rebuked by an editorial in the June 28 issue of the Kansas City Star.

There are some obvious problems with The 1619 Project, including some historical inaccuracies (as noted in this 3/6/20 Politico article). It also fails to link the beginning of U.S. history to the mistreatment of Native Americans (as this 9/26/20 opinion piece explains).

But most who oppose teaching CRT and “1619” want to shield students from much of the “ugly” history of the past. They need to consider, though, the truth of the following meme. (The painting depicts some dreadful history of Canada’s First Nations children, similar to what happened in the U.S.) 

_____
**Of the many articles I have read related to this post, I am linking here to only one, Eugene Robinson’s 6/28 opinion piece in The Washington Post, which is accessible here without a paywall. The sixth paragraph on is directly about The 1619 Project.

Criticizing Criticism of Critical Race Theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is one of the hottest topics of the day, so it seems fitting to critique the profuse criticism of it.

Basically, critical race theory is an academic concept that explains racism as a social construct. That is, racism is understood not merely as the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. Why, though, should that be a target of constant criticism? 

(From a 1/22/2017 post by Kyia Young)

Political Criticism of CRT

The political criticism of CRT has been strongest since September of last year. On Sept. 4, then President Trump had the Executive Office of the President issue a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies.

That memo ended with these words: “The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.”

Since then, several states (Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) have banned/restricted the teaching of CRT.

Perhaps most egregious is Oklahoma’s ban, for earlier this year it was reported that over 80% of the citizens of that state had never heard of the Tulsa race massacre at the end of May 1921.

Nevertheless, on May 7 Oklahoma Gov. Stitt signed a bill that seeks to prevent teachers from saying things so that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.”

But how could Tulsa 1921 possibly be taught without Black students feeling some anguish at the way Blacks were so seriously mistreated then, without White students feeling some guilt at what their ancestors had done, and without all feeling considerable discomfort?

However, all across the country Republican-led states are criticizing CRT, and more states will likely ban/prohibit the teaching of CRT in public schools.

SBC Criticism of CRT

In recent years, perhaps a higher percentage of Southern Baptists have voted for Republican politicians than voters belonging to any other major Christian denomination. Accordingly, CRT has been widely discussed, and criticized, by Baptist pastors and Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders.

There was a major push by the new organization known as Conservative Baptist Network (CBN) to get Pastor Mike Stone of Georgia elected as the next president of the SBC.

In the run-off election on June 15, he lost by a narrow 52%-48% vote at the SBC annual meeting in Nashville. (Lee Brand, Jr., a member of CBN’s steering council, was elected 1st vice president.)

In CBN’s May 20 statement endorsing Stone, the third reason they gave for their support was his opposition to CRT. They boasted that Stone “holds that the Bible is the only analytical tool he needs, leading him to reject unbiblical ideologies such as Critical Race Theory.”

Criticizing the Criticism of CRT

In twentieth-century American Christianity, an important emphasis emerged on what came to be widely labeled as “sinful social structures.” Early on, that emphasis was found in the writings of Walter Rauschenbusch and other Social Gospel proponents.

In A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917), Rauschenbusch wrote that “we are continuing to sin because our fathers created the conditions of sin by the African slave trade and by the unearned wealth they gathered from slave labor for generations” (p. 79). Sin was embedded in the system of slavery.

Fifteen years later, Reinhold Niebuhr published his highly influential book with the sometimes misunderstood title Moral Man and Immoral Society. That means, for example, some slaveowners might treat their slaves kindly (morally) while simultaneously the system of slavery was grossly immoral.

True, some teachers might use CRT in harmful ways. But the greatest harm to society will come from those who refuse to recognize the reality of sinful social structures.

The longer that reality is denied and attempts to understand/dismantle it are rejected (such as by most criticism of CRT), the stronger the roots of racism will become and the longer the detrimental effects of racism will be experienced by so many People of Color.

Yes, criticism of Critical Race Theory must be forthrightly criticized.