This was such an excellent and important article, Dolly. It is particularly useful that you give readers a method for how to respond when we read outrage clickbait--and then link to the standards so that we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves before we add to the outrage. And your final point--that when we express outrage without checking first, we get a personal benefit but make the world worse--is so important to keep in mind in all situations.
I did read (well, skim) the linked standards and agree with you about the “personal benefit” issue. I seem to remember reading many years ago that scholars wanted to reinforce the point that enslaved Black people weren’t just passive victims, but fought back in any way they could, and one way they did that was by working jobs to buy their and their loved ones’ freedom. I just reread Beloved for Freddie’s book club, and one of the characters does just that--buys his mother’s freedom by working side jobs.
There is an aspect of the curriculum that does give me pause that is quite different: The curriculum places a lot of emphasis on slavery in other places and times. While it is true that slavery has been a terrible evil throughout human history--and to this day in some places--I think such an emphasis on slavery outside the US risks both-sidesism. It risks communicating the attitude that slavery in the US was a terrible but regrettably normal thing and no worse than what other people were doing.
But the truth is that slavery in the US was unique and uniquely bad for two reasons: that children of enslaved women were also enslaved, and that slave owners routinely broke up families by selling people away from their parents, children, siblings, and spouses. Slavery in other places didn’t operate this way; it was still evil, of course, but the US really did win this particular shameful prize, and a responsible history curriculum will make that clear. Maybe I missed a place in the curriculum where they discussed this? But if not, I think it is a flaw.
Finally, I have to agree with you about the elementary-school curriculum’s focus on the positive. I wish that we on the left weren’t always advocating for forcing the worst, ugliest information on children before they’re ready to absorb it. It’s almost as though these people on the left are upset that children are tootling along in happy complacency and want to wake them up to brutal reality.
I recently got into a dispute with an acquaintance who was angry that Tennessee removed Maus from the middle-school curriculum. (Note: they didn’t ban the book, but they did take it off the required reading list for kids aged 12-14.) I suggested that most kids that age aren’t ready for a work that is as unremittingly bleak and explicit as Maus, and that there are better choices (Eli Wiesel’s Night, for example) for kids that age. She was unconvinced. So I told her about my own 7th-grade social studies teacher, who spent the Holocaust unit telling us the most grotesque, horrifying facts about tortures inflicted on Jews in the camps. We--a bunch of 12-year-olds--couldn’t handle it. We would laugh nervously and make awful jokes. I still feel guilty about this, but at the same time I am still angry at this idiot teacher, who put us kids in the position to laugh at atrocities, because we couldn’t handle what he was telling us. (My acquaintance’s response was that HER son was able to handle extremely intense material at a very young age and would not have responded to the class that way. Good for him! But he strikes me as the exception, and we should develop curricula for the regular kids.)
Please forgive the length of this comment! I love so much how your essays make me think, and I get carried away!
First, Mari, I love the length of your comments -- and people’s comments and our discussions are the reason I write at all -- so thank you. I’m honored that you find it worth your time, and I’m very grateful to hear what you have to say on any topic!💕
That’s a terrible experience for a 7th grader. And especially when I think back (we’re a similar age, you and I) about how many of us actually knew people in our families and neighborhoods who had experienced the camps. This was not an unusual thing -- today, sadly, most of those people are gone. But it would have brought an immediacy to hearing about the atrocities which just isn’t the same today. So it makes your experience especially horrifying!
I agree about not banning books while doing our very best to present content that is age appropriate. Maus might be too much! We know that good people might disagree about what’s age-appropriate, and we can recognize that kids differ -- but as you said, let’s try to create content appropriate for the typical kid, at an age where they can handle it and benefit from what we want to teach.
I’m conflicted about the “slavery in other places” thing. That’s definitely included in the Florida curriculum and wasn’t included when I was a kid. When I hear conservatives trot out the simplest version of their talking points, I agree it _can_ come across as “both sidesism” and “what America did wasn’t that weird or bad.”
I don’t think that’s the nuanced conservatives’ point in wanting to include such teaching, but in its simplest form, it can sound like we’re letting America off the hook.
At the same time, the curriculum as I learned it as a child was that the Americas were uniquely bad and no one else did such things. And that’s not quite true either. Trying to think back to my middle school years, I was dimly aware that the Romans had slaves, but that was so long ago. And then there were the wicked Americans, kidnapping Africans out of context.
So I do think there’s a place for teaching about the bigger history of slavery in other times and places, and the bigger history of exploitation and forced labor (serfs, say -- and if “Droit du seigneur” is a myth, it’s certainly true that higher-status men throughout history used their power and influence to exploit lower-status women sexually, free of consequences).
Again... in an age-appropriate way. Teaching that people all over the world throughout history conquered other people and exploited their labor is perhaps a good thing to know. It’s good context. I don’t think it takes away from how bad we did things here.
Discussions like this about the curriculum definitely need to be had -- and it’s easier to do if “both sides” are seeing each other as people who are trying their best to create a helpful and accurate way of teaching social studies -- people who all want to provide kids a good and accurate and developmentally appropriate education.
These are all excellent points. In a way I think that it’s better for kids to learn that slavery has been so ubiquitous in world history. It makes it all the more important to fight injustice when we see it.
And thank you for your kind words about that awful social studies class. It’s actually worse than you imagine. As you know, I grew up in Minnesota, and back then there were no Jews, let alone Holocaust survivors, in our rural community. So that teacher really had poor judgement in treating the terrible suffering in the camps as sensational content for his preteen students. It would have been much better for us to read Anne Frank and leave the explicit, violent details for later.
And that slavery is still ubiquitous today. Some 40 million people are still enslaved today.
I'll never forget my social studies teacher who, after a student asked why people in the past didn't do anything about something as horrible as slavery, pointed out all the students in the room wearing Nike shoes and asked them if they felt bad about their clothes being made by slaves. Really drove the point home.
Great comment - I wanted to say that I was also introduced to the holocaust in an inappropriate way in school, and then my parents watched Schindlers List with me when I was way too young, and I had no way to process it. As a result, I can't handle dramatizations of really terrible historical events as an adult; I always feel that its hugely inappropriate to watch depictions of slavery or the holocaust in the same theater I saw Iron Man. Not that that's the worst or anything, but I reflect on that from time to time and believe there must have been a better way to introduce these horrible historical events.
But I think its also wise to understand that this is a really difficult thing to do: How do you educate children about evil? This is a strange task because you have to give your child the freedom to react as they will - their own private emotional life - but at the same time, what if they don't have an appropriate reaction? What to you do then? What is the role of maturity, and socialization to sensitivity to events that happened to other people long ago, but which are still profoundly sad and influencing events today? What is a child's responsibility to other people when considering these historical events? Can this be done well in public institutions, or should it mostly take place at home because there isn't a better alternative? Its really hard to know and I have a lot of sympathy for those that are earnestly trying to figure this out.
I love your thoughts on this -- it’s really hard to know what’s best when it comes to kids and distressing facts. It’s hard for some of us to remember that far back (what it was like emotionally). And yet kids have to learn what the world is like... at some point. But when and how?
I’ve heard countless anecdotes now, about kids coming home to tell their parents misinterpretations of things they learned in history, and especially as it applies to today. I think it’s divisive and accomplishes the exact opposite of what most people want.
Jul 31, 2023·edited Jul 31, 2023Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
Although it is true that most (not sure if all) indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as most Islamic cultures, did not make slavery hereditary, this was not the case for slaves in Indonesia and Korea or "late-period" Egypt or Rome. Descent-based slavery is still occurring in Mauritania and Niger. Also fairly recently in Mali, although that may have been wiped out by now?
Thanks for the information Mark. It's unfortunate that there seems to be an urge to turn the long world history of atrocities into some kind of contest, where the U.S. can be deemed worst. I really don't see how this kind of teaching is appropriate at the K-12 level.
Pardonne mon français . . . Je suis obligé d'écrire dans plusieurs langues parce que : 1. La plupart des gens aux États-Unis ont subi un lavage de cerveau leur faisant croire que les Juifs sont leur salut ; et 2., leur anglais est de la merde et ils ne peuvent pas rester silencieux assez longtemps pour entendre ou voir ce qui se passe évidemment autour d'eux . . .
Le judéo-messianisme répand parmi nous son message empoisonné depuis près de deux mille ans. Les universalismes démocratique et communiste sont plus récents, mais ils n’ont fait que renforcer le vieux récit juif . . . Ce sont les mêmes idéaux . . . Les idéaux transnationaux, transraciaux, transsexuels, transculturels que ces idéologies nous prêchent (au-delà des peuples, des races, des cultures) et qui sont le subsistance quotidienne de nos écoles, dans nos médias, dans notre culture populaire, à nos universités, et sur nos rues, ont fini par réduire notre identité biosymbolique et notre fierté ethnique à leur expression minimale.
Les banquiers juifs ont inondé l’Europe de musulmans et l’Amérique de déchets du tiers-monde . . . L'exil comme punition pour ceux qui prêchent la sédition devrait être rétabli dans le cadre juridique de l'Occident . . . Le judaïsme, le christianisme, et l’islam sont des cultes de mort originaires du Moyen-Orient et totalement étrangers à l’Europe et à ses peuples . . . Nous socialistes nationaux est venu à libéré Paris, nous ne l'avons pas détruit.
On se demande parfois pourquoi la gauche européenne s’entend si bien avec les musulmans. Pourquoi un mouvement souvent ouvertement antireligieux prend-il le parti d’une religiosité farouche qui semble s’opposer à presque tout ce que la gauche a toujours prétendu défendre ? Une partie de l’explication réside dans le fait que l’Islam et le marxisme ont une racine idéologique commune : le judaïsme.
On dirait que Don Rumsfeld avait raison lorsqu’il disait : «L’Europe s’est décalé sur son axe», c’est le mauvais côté qui a gagné la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et cela devient chaque jour plus clair . . . Qu’a fait l’OTAN pour défendre l’Europe? Absolument rien . . . Mes ennemis ne sont pas à Moscou, à Damas, à Téhéran, à Riyad ou dans quelque croque-mitaine teutonique éthéré, mes ennemis sont à Washington, Bruxelles et Tel Aviv . . . Va te faire foutre toi et ton dieu juif.
I think it's always been the mouthpiece of the establishment, but the number of nutty, fringe hot takes has exploded over the last 10 years, in parallel with the fringy wingnuts inside the GOP. "Both sides"-ism up until the day the entire staff is sent to camps.
Forgive my French . . . I am compelled to write in several languages because: 1. Most people in the United States have been brainwashed into believing that Jews are their salvation; and 2., their English is shit and they can't stay silent long enough to hear or see what's obviously going on around them . . .
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and Communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals . . . The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and which are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, at our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our biosymbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.
Jewish bankers flooded Europe with Muslims and America with third-world garbage. Exile as punishment for those who preach sedition should be restored within the legal framework of the West . . . Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples . . . We National Socialists came to liberate Paris, we did not destroy it.
One sometimes wonders why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always claimed to stand for? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
It seems that Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," it was the wrong side that won World War II, and it is becoming clearer every day. What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing . . . My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic boogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv . . . Fuck you and your Jewish god.
The "slaves developed skills" bit, as long as it's not mis-represented as a good thing about slavery (which I don't see this curriculum doing), is both true and important historically. To get the obvious point out of the way first - the same people, had they not been enslaved, could have developed even more skills and had a much better life while doing so. Slavery did not give them any learning opportunities that they couldn't have had, many times over, without slavery (and again, the curriculum does not say otherwise).
Case in point - reading. It's a while ago I read up on this, but I seem to remember that there was a rule on most plantations that slaves were not allowed to be taught to read and write, ever, lest they get ideas and the ability to organize and educate themselves and plan escapes and compose abolitionist pamphlets and the like. And of course, they did all these things anyway, the best they could under terrible conditions. Some of them read the Bible and were particularly impressed with Exodus where Moses frees the slaves from Egypt, and so we have the amazing spiritual Go Down Moses (Let My People Go). You can operate an Underground Railroad more efficiently when some of the people involved can read and write, too.
An accurate historical overview would make very clear that some slaves learnt to read and write despite, not because of, their owners' wishes. But learn they did - and saw it as an act of liberation. And of course at the extreme end of this process you end up with the writings of Douglass, who according to Wikipedia (quoting from a speech he wrote) "learned to spell from an old Webster's spelling-book and to read and write from posters on cellar and barn doors, while boys and men would help him".
“Slavery did not give them any learning opportunities that they couldn't have had, many times over, without slavery.” Exactly.
I do think the point (and we agree on this) was to highlight the amazing ability for people to do something to help themselves and others despite the terrible circumstances they found themselves in.
Jul 31, 2023·edited Jul 31, 2023Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
So so so great of you to link the actual standards. I grew up in the suburban South, and while my education was overall very good, there were definitely some pretty ugly ideas floating around in the background. The Lost Cause doctrine was still alive and well among some adults where I lived, and people were often very angry about what they saw as the “villainizing” of the Confederacy. In the South, in some pretty important ways, the losers got to write the history books about the Civil War – so anything that moves further away from that to a more nuanced place is worth supporting, in my opinion.
I remember as an elementary school-age kid being really impacted by the American Girl chapter books about Addie, whose story starts in slavery and continues with her and her family escaping to the Union states before the Civil War. It’s open-eyed both about the horrors of being a child working hard labor and subject to intense cruelty, and about the realities of racism and economic inequality even in the comparatively-better “free” states. Thinking back, I think these were a great way to introduce the atrocity of slavery — through the eyes of a little girl that a little girl could relate to. Fiction can be a good way to help younger kids start to contextualize the past; they might not be able to grasp the idea of centuries’ worth of time, but they can grasp stories, and the idea that things used to be very different from how they are now. It helped me start to grasp that I even knew people, other little kids in my classes, whose ancestors had experienced things the book characters had experienced. I’d be interested to know if Florida is including relevant fiction in the concurrent reading coursework. I’ll look into the rest of those standards!
Thanks for the comments, Sarah! It’s interesting to hear about your experiences with social studies as a kid in the South. I had no idea those ideas persisted as long as they did. (I was glad to read none of that in the standards.)
I wonder whether -- similar to my comment to Mari about the gruesome details of the Nazi camps being possibly even more distressing and impactful if you happen to know people who were personally there -- the “losers” in the South felt more keenly their personal losses (more so than, say, keeping slavery) if their grandparents or great-grandparents had died or had their farm destroyed in the war -- and of course one generally feels one’s own family had to have been the “good guys.”
I say this because I remember hearing some old timers say the war was about protecting their land, their farms etc. I don’t remember any old timers saying “and I wish slavery was preserved.” So I wonder whether many of the losers felt their families _were_villainized, whether they felt they _were_ protecting their families, and whether, say, not being able to vote until they swore a loyalty oath to a regime that destroyed their cities and farms truly felt like injustice and villainization.
I’m not saying I agree with any of that! I’m trying to understand why the Lost Cause and the belief in the South that they had been unfairly villainized persisted for so long, and whether that has to do with slavery or whether it has to do with knowing people who were personally affected or harmed in the war.
And... it might explain why with time and distance, we’ve got a more uniform understanding of the war, and those ideas are dying out. No one knows anyone personally affected anymore. Even if your family’s farm or neighborhood or city was destroyed nearly 200 years ago, with time you move on from that and take a broader view. You don’t feel those losses as personally.
I love your thoughts about fiction helping kids understand the past. I’m a bit too old (!) to have been reading the American Girl books but I’ve often heard that they are really good. That’s really a great idea to use fiction in this way, especially because our teaching of history tends to focus on political events and the few people involved in those events -- and not regular people who lived through it all.
There is a great podcast called Inward Empire that includes a fascinating episode about how the Civil War was memorialized and narrativized. In particular, that it took almost an entire generation after the war for its horrors and realities to start to be acknowledged alongside the glory and heroism (on both sides). I’ll drop the link here for anyone interested: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/inwardempirepodcast/episodes/2015-09-03T19_05_01-07_00
I wish I had better context for why some middle-class people in the suburban South still felt such a sense of grievance about the Civil War in the early 2000s - but I was a kid and had no idea. I still don’t. Somehow, some people still took very personally events that had really not touched anyone in their families in living memory. (I actually remember that “people are still mad about Sherman burning down Atlanta” WAS in the 8th grade curriculum.)
Overall, though, I just remember a lot of insistence, not in the curriculum but by opponents of the curriculum, that the Civil War was not about slavery at all, and that that was a lie told by arrogant northerners who looked down on the South and wanted to tar everyone there as a racist. “It was actually about states’ rights and the Confederacy was defending the Constitution!” was a line my classmates parroted. There was nothing some people hated more than Black people who they saw as milking the atrocity of slavery to get “handouts.” Again, I didn’t learn this in school, but it was still there in the culture around me - a majority didn’t have to believe it for it to be in the air. People would say, “I don’t have anything against black people, so long as they don’t think I owe them something.” And this tied into more mainstream conservative Republican views against welfare and affirmative action.
But I think you’re right about some of the motivations there. I think there’s a sense of shame and denial that they or their ancestors would have risen up in support of something so awful, that there must have been something more justifiable in their involvement. And to some degree they’re not wrong - not every confederate soldier came from a slaveholding family and the economic and political background to the war is extremely complex. At the same time, I still find their sense that anyone was holding them personally in contempt for the actions of their ancestors to be misled.
These new standards do not seem to me to be in any way feeding that narrative. And that should be counted as a success.
I’ll definitely check out the podcast -- thanks, Sarah!
That’s so interesting -- having more details about what you learned and what the environment was. Yes by the early 2000s, even someone’s great-grandpa probably wouldn’t have known anyone personally affected -- maybe a very weak link, like his own great-grandpa being bitter about what happened to his family. It’s a stretch.
Probably yes -- the shame of slavery probably made people in the South wish the war were about other things.
And in the lifetime of our own parents/ grandparents, Jim Crow was going strong.
Yes! I read tons of the American Girl books as a kid, and they were great introductions to other times, places, and ways of life. They showed darkness, but it always felt age appropriate to me and never like more than I could handle.
Amen sister. Yours is only the second place I've seen pushback on this nonsense narrative. (The other was the reliable BARpod.) I'm sure there are more criticisms out there, and more to come, because this boneheaded hysteria is so easy to puncture.
But then again, I thought the same when it came to MSM's willful misinterpretation of "very fine people on both sides" - I figured the gullible hysterics will eventually just listen to the whole recording and will realize they are barking up the wrong tree on this one - and I was so completely wrong.
ANYWAY
The first outrage article I read was from Heather Cox Richardson. Despite her being a Biden cheerleader in all ways, I enjoy and respect her perspective because at least she is transparent about her politics and bias. But her takes on this topic were just so, so bad... kudos to her though for at least including a link to the standards that she so completely misrepresented and misinterpreted. I scanned that mother twice, looking for bs and nonsense, and studied carefully any place that discussed slavery... and found exactly what you found. Academic standards that were actually far superior to what I experienced in my Virginia childhood. Far more willing to explore slavery and associated topics with the depth and nuance they deserve, far more willing to grant the enslaved genuine humanity and agency. I actually felt like I had somehow disconnected from reality because what I read had no connection to the imaginary pro-slavery document that existed in so many other pundit's fever dreams. Not the first time I've felt this.
I am also liberal. Both a classical liberal and a (class-focused) progressive. I am not inclined to favor Florida or anything that DeSantis endorses. And that unnecessary disclaimer aside, I found nothing remotely "problematic" in the curriculum and found so much that was laudable.
Oh yes -- thanks for the reminder of the “willful misinterpretation of ‘very fine people on both sides’ " -- as much as I detested Trump, it was obvious that he wasn’t referring to neo-Nazis.
That’s a perfect example of manufactured outrage over something that didn’t happen, which divides us and prevents us from doing anything useful with our time on Earth.
And absolutely: “I actually felt like I had somehow disconnected from reality because what I read had no connection to the imaginary pro-slavery document....”
It is actually disorienting to have the media and your friends and neighbors so worked up about something which seems not to have happened. It’s hard to speak when people are busy arguing over imaginary things. But if we see this stuff, I think it’s important to try to speak.
I agree I saw nothing objectionable and much that was good in the curriculum. But people of goodwill are always going to disagree about what should be included at what age, and what should be left out, and what’s politically relevant or concordant with their worldview or agreeable to their communities and what’s not. I assume the people in Florida will create different curricula from the people in Massachusetts, with everyone acting with the best of intentions. If there are actually problems with the curriculum or discussions to be had to include more of X or less of Y, we aren’t in a position to have those discussions as long as we’re screaming about a document that doesn’t exist.
You hit this one out of the park Dolly! (That’s really good in case you are not a baseball fan). I couldn’t agree more.
It’s really disappointing to see obviously intelligent people (on both sides) reach for the outrage button rather than stepping back to think about a proposition through the lens of actual experience. Maybe we have all been taught to discount experience as simply anecdotal and without significance. In the process we seem to have thrown away basic common sense. It’s high time we got reacquainted with what we used to call “using our heads”.
I hope this excellent post helps point us in the right direction; as you point out, we will all benefit.
Thank you for this. I wish your article could go viral because so many people are misinformed on this issue. Even I, who am very skeptical of what I read in the NYT, I believed their propaganda relative to the Floridians.. And the points you make regarding the effects of these lies are excellent. The result is the impossibility of any dialogue with the opposite side.
If there’s one thing this country needs, it’s dialog about what is genuinely in our collective best interests, and not these endless rounds of screaming and accusations that go nowhere and accomplish nothing.
Late to the party once again. Someone- perhaps you - commented about judging history through today's lens. That excellent point often gets lost in the weeds. The same happens when we judge our fellow citizens based on generalizations, such as skin color, geography, lot in life, etc. I believe we do it because it simplifies. We project preconceived notions onto people and situations in order to quickly assess surroundings. That serves us well when confronting danger. . It also detracts from our ability to learn about others when we rely on this instinct too heavily. We make the same mistake with history
We simply cannot walk in other's shoes. I've worked and raised funds for a local organization that assists down--on-their-luck families with long term supportive housing and case management. Rule #1 - meet and accept them where they are. What a gift. I wish we could all learn how powerful that is. Race, religion, orgin, single, married, doesn't matter. They get a reset because they're allowed it
Our tenancy to simplify makes sense in an environment with information overload. We must, however, turn that impulse off when it impedes learning. We unfairly judge people and events when paradigms rule our thoughts
This article demonstrates your ability to do that, Dolly. Most liberals freak when they hear, "Florida". Conservatarians, such as me, make the same mistake with, "California". Those labels block reasonable thought, right off the bat. The same happens when we cast today's mores onto history
Rock and roll burst onto the scene only 70 years ago, bringing with it a tidal wave of cultural change. It brought risquity, drugs, rebellion, the sexual revolution in many ways. It gave youth, long told to shut up at the dinner table, a voice. It gave black people a platform, unimaginable just decades prior
Elvis lit parent's hair on fire in the 50's. Imagine them watching Miley Cirus today. Kids now would look at Elvis as a prude, if they even know of him. Chuck Berry captured that era better than anyone, using very tame lyrics. Is it fair to downplay their impact by using today's standards? Of course not. They are revolutionaries. It's a totally different world, thanks largely to guys like that
While I'm not comparing music to slavery, it demonstrates the lunacy of applying modern morality to historical figures and events. History informs us, not the other way around. Modern labels work the same way. They cloud our ability to assess based on truth and merit. Your article perfectly articulates the danger in using generalizations in lieu of critical thinking. Thank you!
Bravo. I've made similar points about Trump criticisms. In my view Trump is awful yet TDS is real.
The more progressives engage in TDS, the more conservatives feel entitled to tune progressives out when they criticize Trump. Don't let right-wingers tune out criticisms of Trump - make sure the criticisms are accurate.
You didn't even know that the Big Bang of the White American middle classes, which was the GI bill where the government would provide FHA loans, was denied for 98% WWII Blabk GI.
It turns out that there are things called computers that can be networked together. This allows them to make computation with sophisticated algorithms.
Not only can we track the disparities from 1880s through 2018, we can also track the economic and political policies targeted specifically against Black people.
We can also the disparities of salaries between Black people and White people in all the professions.
How many times have your White male relatives been stopped by the police in a year?
Post 2020 Presidential elections, the counties that were called in to question were the predominantly African American ones. That's an attack on the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.
This is the problem with White Conservatives that they think there Gods chosen people, and should have complete power when it comes to who governs the Republic.
That's where all the other sins come from.
Your lack of understanding of basic science principles to understand that climate change is real, man made and happening in real time. Thought it was all fake.
Welcome to the new world order of extreme weather events.
Structural Institutional Racism can be proven, just like climate change can be proven.
If you don't want to hear about the disparities, and so called Victimhood, then stop making Victims.
"SLAVERY WAS TERRIBLE " But when you look at it, it wasn't as bad as most people think. For instance, by constantly keeping enslaved Black women pregnant, other enslaved Black women became skilled Midwives. Which was an upside of the biocapitalism of breeding more slaves.
This is how YOU sound in this article to an ACTUAL BLACK WOMAN.
I don't care about what you did and didn't learn about African American History. Your job was to educate yourself of the history to understand. To understand concurrently to the historical narratives they are presenting, there were Race Riots, lynching, Black women and girls being raped, intellectually property like invention being stolen and patented by White men. The kidnapping of Freedman and woman to take them down to the Slave States to be enslaved. All posr-slavey in the North.
Did you ever, as a White Liberal woman, think to contact African American Historians, to present them with the curriculum, so they could give you a thorough understanding and deconstruction of how the curriculum Whitewashes history and the underlying agenda by the Conservatives?
This why you have failed, because you gave "facts" without any context because you don't know the History.
Your comments are a perfect example of the problem I’m talking about. I’d like to hear you, but it’s hard because you sound unhinged. If “how I sound” to you is that “it wasn’t as bad as most people think” I end up thinking you’re either not listening to me honestly or you’re not quite tethered to reality. Either way, that makes it very difficult for me to hear you or to take your comments seriously.
The curriculum doesn't explain the creation of Structural Institutional Racism.
The curriculum doesn't address the generationally cost attached to Slavery, 400 Black Communities genocied and covered up with man made lakes.
The curriculum doesn't explain that the most exported products from America has been the Confederate Flag. Anti Black racism has been Global for over a hundred years
The almost Bicentennial history of Irish descendants of beating, incarnations and gunning down Black people. They majority of them were the slave catchers. And this community created the Police and Fire Departments.
The curriculum akin to teaching Creationism vs Evolution.
Black people are still fighting for the right to vote in 2023.
Here are some books for you since you asked for sources.
Khalil Gilbran Muhammad: " The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime and the Making of Modern Urban America."
Douglas A. Blackmon: "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War Ii"
Harriet A. Washington: " Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. "
Ibram X Kendi, Keisha N. Blain: " Four Hundred Souls: A Community History of African American, 1619 - 2019."
Annette Gordon-Reed, a black historian and Harvard professor, has written extensively about Jefferson and specifically Sally Hemings and her family. The Hemingses of Monticello was an eye opening book for me, not just because it was so detailed and well researched, but because of how sensitively Gordon-Reed treated the subject matter.
Gordon-Reed is not a conservative, not by a long shot. Yet she asked questions about the agency of Sally Hemings in her relationship with Jefferson. For instance, Hemings had the opportunity to be free while she lived in Paris with Jefferson--in fact, her brother took that opportunity (slavery was illegal on French soil, so any enslaved person brought there could essentially defect and become free French people). But Sally did not. She chose to stay with Jefferson--and this was *before* she had any of his children. And she wasn't house bound; she and her brother had freedom of movement around Paris while there.
Of course we can't know for sure why she stayed. I don't think anyone could accuse Gordon-Reed of whitewashing. And not once does she imply that slavery wasn't all that bad. But she does emphasize that slaves were not "just slaves." They were human beings who still had individuality and agency, even when their agency was violently suppressed. Some enslaved people were highly skilled artisans, and some exercised incredible ingenuity to escape the most horrific, suppressive regime.
Growing up, I learned about the horrors of American slavery and lynching and Jim Crow. But I didn't learn nearly as much abut the individual human beings who were enslaved, their creativity and genius. I don't understand how doing so could be bad.
I haven’t read that book (and didn’t know that about Sally Hemings) but now I really want to. Thanks for a thought-provoking comment.
Slavery was unbelievably horrible. It doesn’t even need to be said (except that some people seem to think that point is in doubt among Americans? It’s not.)
But there’s a point at which we do lose sight of the individuals and the lives they lived and all they achieved. To recognize the individuals is not to say “so, in conclusion, slavery wasn’t so bad.” No. It WAS just as bad as everyone agrees. And so was post-slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, all of it. That’s not even up for discussion, because no one thinks that.
But enslaved people were not cartoon characters, or players in a melodrama, forever tied to the tracks. They had full lives. They didn’t exist in order for us to exploit them for political points while ignoring their full humanity.
I loved that book, it opened my mind and presented possibilities to ponder about both Hemmings and Jefferson. I saw them both as complex human beings, just like me and everybody I know. You write: "But she does emphasize that slaves were not "just slaves." They were human beings who still had individuality and agency, even when their agency was violently suppressed." Such an important point. I think this is what some so called "heterodox" black intellectuals like Glenn Loury present as well, pushing back on the narrative of condemned and eternal victimhood as being far, far from a state of true emancipation.
Hi Valerie--I am pretty much in accord with Dolly's perspective on these standards, but as another white liberal woman I took heed of your suggestion to ask a friend who is a very distinguished African American historian what he thought of the standards. We both read through them and discussed. As with most of the commenters here, he made it clear that any whiff, any suggestion that slavery was meant to be a vocational school for African Americans is highly offensive. But after reading through it, he said his take was that this is clearly not what the guidelines are suggesting. I did see a piece by John McWhorter (another distinguished black intellectual) saying it could have been worded better, but pointing out all the great things in the curriculum. And this piece just came out by Glenn Loury, another black intellectual giant, a conservative who always has interesting things to say. I realize you probably don't agree with this or with Loury in general, but you might find it interesting; https://glennloury.substack.com/p/what-florida-is-and-isnt-teaching
They are trying to blame whole communities Genocided on Black people. It's like Trump saying in 2016 when different White Supremacy groups meeting together in SC to protest the possible dismantling of Confederate Monuments and proceeded to try to inflict violence of those who on the opposing side, "That these sides were Equal"
To not talk about Structural Institutional Racism is akin to not talking about Rape Culture in this country.
Our relationship with our White cousins has been a 435 year of cyclular destruction of Black assets and wealth accumulation.
It's like being in a relationship with an Sadistically abuse husband. When that wife gets an income that allows her to leave, that's he beats her or out right kills her.
But now White people don't have create a homicidal mob to attack Black people. The created disparities are embedded in the Socioeconomic System, The Political System, The Banking and Finance System, The Justice System, Employment System and The Educational System
I don't think Dolly is attacking black people. Is that what you actually think? I certainly don't believe this distinguished black historian who I asked to look into it is "attacking black people" when he says he does not find the phrase being discussed in the Florida curriculum to be racist or problematic. You told Dolly that is what she should do, after all, ask a black historian. This man is an EXPERT in black history. I am not, and I doubt you are. In fact, he looked through the entire curriculum and was pleased and surprised to see African American history in the other categories of history--as it should be. African American history is American history. I do not think that Glenn Loury, another distinguished black academic is attacking black people by questioning how this narrative has been spun out. He and others question the validity of the "systemic racism" frame you believe to be the only reality worth discussing. I agree it's part of the reality, including the destruction of assets and wealth, but I don't think it's the entire story. Keeping that as the entire story also keeps a narrative of victimhood for black Americans, a story that many reject. I also do not want to see everything through the lens of "rape culture," even though sexual abuse and rape is such a serious problem.
But I can see there is no point in discussing further, as you do not actually wish to learn, engage, or discuss. You did not even comment on the information I shared with you, information you asked for. You wish to see the world through a certain lens, for whatever reasons. I do wish you well.
This was such an excellent and important article, Dolly. It is particularly useful that you give readers a method for how to respond when we read outrage clickbait--and then link to the standards so that we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves before we add to the outrage. And your final point--that when we express outrage without checking first, we get a personal benefit but make the world worse--is so important to keep in mind in all situations.
I did read (well, skim) the linked standards and agree with you about the “personal benefit” issue. I seem to remember reading many years ago that scholars wanted to reinforce the point that enslaved Black people weren’t just passive victims, but fought back in any way they could, and one way they did that was by working jobs to buy their and their loved ones’ freedom. I just reread Beloved for Freddie’s book club, and one of the characters does just that--buys his mother’s freedom by working side jobs.
There is an aspect of the curriculum that does give me pause that is quite different: The curriculum places a lot of emphasis on slavery in other places and times. While it is true that slavery has been a terrible evil throughout human history--and to this day in some places--I think such an emphasis on slavery outside the US risks both-sidesism. It risks communicating the attitude that slavery in the US was a terrible but regrettably normal thing and no worse than what other people were doing.
But the truth is that slavery in the US was unique and uniquely bad for two reasons: that children of enslaved women were also enslaved, and that slave owners routinely broke up families by selling people away from their parents, children, siblings, and spouses. Slavery in other places didn’t operate this way; it was still evil, of course, but the US really did win this particular shameful prize, and a responsible history curriculum will make that clear. Maybe I missed a place in the curriculum where they discussed this? But if not, I think it is a flaw.
Finally, I have to agree with you about the elementary-school curriculum’s focus on the positive. I wish that we on the left weren’t always advocating for forcing the worst, ugliest information on children before they’re ready to absorb it. It’s almost as though these people on the left are upset that children are tootling along in happy complacency and want to wake them up to brutal reality.
I recently got into a dispute with an acquaintance who was angry that Tennessee removed Maus from the middle-school curriculum. (Note: they didn’t ban the book, but they did take it off the required reading list for kids aged 12-14.) I suggested that most kids that age aren’t ready for a work that is as unremittingly bleak and explicit as Maus, and that there are better choices (Eli Wiesel’s Night, for example) for kids that age. She was unconvinced. So I told her about my own 7th-grade social studies teacher, who spent the Holocaust unit telling us the most grotesque, horrifying facts about tortures inflicted on Jews in the camps. We--a bunch of 12-year-olds--couldn’t handle it. We would laugh nervously and make awful jokes. I still feel guilty about this, but at the same time I am still angry at this idiot teacher, who put us kids in the position to laugh at atrocities, because we couldn’t handle what he was telling us. (My acquaintance’s response was that HER son was able to handle extremely intense material at a very young age and would not have responded to the class that way. Good for him! But he strikes me as the exception, and we should develop curricula for the regular kids.)
Please forgive the length of this comment! I love so much how your essays make me think, and I get carried away!
First, Mari, I love the length of your comments -- and people’s comments and our discussions are the reason I write at all -- so thank you. I’m honored that you find it worth your time, and I’m very grateful to hear what you have to say on any topic!💕
That’s a terrible experience for a 7th grader. And especially when I think back (we’re a similar age, you and I) about how many of us actually knew people in our families and neighborhoods who had experienced the camps. This was not an unusual thing -- today, sadly, most of those people are gone. But it would have brought an immediacy to hearing about the atrocities which just isn’t the same today. So it makes your experience especially horrifying!
I agree about not banning books while doing our very best to present content that is age appropriate. Maus might be too much! We know that good people might disagree about what’s age-appropriate, and we can recognize that kids differ -- but as you said, let’s try to create content appropriate for the typical kid, at an age where they can handle it and benefit from what we want to teach.
I’m conflicted about the “slavery in other places” thing. That’s definitely included in the Florida curriculum and wasn’t included when I was a kid. When I hear conservatives trot out the simplest version of their talking points, I agree it _can_ come across as “both sidesism” and “what America did wasn’t that weird or bad.”
I don’t think that’s the nuanced conservatives’ point in wanting to include such teaching, but in its simplest form, it can sound like we’re letting America off the hook.
At the same time, the curriculum as I learned it as a child was that the Americas were uniquely bad and no one else did such things. And that’s not quite true either. Trying to think back to my middle school years, I was dimly aware that the Romans had slaves, but that was so long ago. And then there were the wicked Americans, kidnapping Africans out of context.
So I do think there’s a place for teaching about the bigger history of slavery in other times and places, and the bigger history of exploitation and forced labor (serfs, say -- and if “Droit du seigneur” is a myth, it’s certainly true that higher-status men throughout history used their power and influence to exploit lower-status women sexually, free of consequences).
Again... in an age-appropriate way. Teaching that people all over the world throughout history conquered other people and exploited their labor is perhaps a good thing to know. It’s good context. I don’t think it takes away from how bad we did things here.
Discussions like this about the curriculum definitely need to be had -- and it’s easier to do if “both sides” are seeing each other as people who are trying their best to create a helpful and accurate way of teaching social studies -- people who all want to provide kids a good and accurate and developmentally appropriate education.
These are all excellent points. In a way I think that it’s better for kids to learn that slavery has been so ubiquitous in world history. It makes it all the more important to fight injustice when we see it.
And thank you for your kind words about that awful social studies class. It’s actually worse than you imagine. As you know, I grew up in Minnesota, and back then there were no Jews, let alone Holocaust survivors, in our rural community. So that teacher really had poor judgement in treating the terrible suffering in the camps as sensational content for his preteen students. It would have been much better for us to read Anne Frank and leave the explicit, violent details for later.
And that slavery is still ubiquitous today. Some 40 million people are still enslaved today.
I'll never forget my social studies teacher who, after a student asked why people in the past didn't do anything about something as horrible as slavery, pointed out all the students in the room wearing Nike shoes and asked them if they felt bad about their clothes being made by slaves. Really drove the point home.
"pointed out all the students in the room wearing Nike shoes and asked them if they felt bad about their clothes being made by slaves"
Exactly. And in a couple hundred years people in the future might look harshly upon that. Or people who were willing to eat factory-farmed meat.
Whoa. That sounds like a good teacher.
We Can't Afford Healthcare for American Children Because We Need to Keep Bombing Everyone Else's for the Love of Jesus and Israel . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/we-cant-afford-healthcare-for-american
We Must Outlaw Abortion . . . Jesus Needs More Babies for His War Machine . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/138167431/jesus-needs-more-babies-for-his-war-machine
Great comment - I wanted to say that I was also introduced to the holocaust in an inappropriate way in school, and then my parents watched Schindlers List with me when I was way too young, and I had no way to process it. As a result, I can't handle dramatizations of really terrible historical events as an adult; I always feel that its hugely inappropriate to watch depictions of slavery or the holocaust in the same theater I saw Iron Man. Not that that's the worst or anything, but I reflect on that from time to time and believe there must have been a better way to introduce these horrible historical events.
But I think its also wise to understand that this is a really difficult thing to do: How do you educate children about evil? This is a strange task because you have to give your child the freedom to react as they will - their own private emotional life - but at the same time, what if they don't have an appropriate reaction? What to you do then? What is the role of maturity, and socialization to sensitivity to events that happened to other people long ago, but which are still profoundly sad and influencing events today? What is a child's responsibility to other people when considering these historical events? Can this be done well in public institutions, or should it mostly take place at home because there isn't a better alternative? Its really hard to know and I have a lot of sympathy for those that are earnestly trying to figure this out.
I love your thoughts on this -- it’s really hard to know what’s best when it comes to kids and distressing facts. It’s hard for some of us to remember that far back (what it was like emotionally). And yet kids have to learn what the world is like... at some point. But when and how?
I’ve heard countless anecdotes now, about kids coming home to tell their parents misinterpretations of things they learned in history, and especially as it applies to today. I think it’s divisive and accomplishes the exact opposite of what most people want.
Although it is true that most (not sure if all) indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as most Islamic cultures, did not make slavery hereditary, this was not the case for slaves in Indonesia and Korea or "late-period" Egypt or Rome. Descent-based slavery is still occurring in Mauritania and Niger. Also fairly recently in Mali, although that may have been wiped out by now?
Thanks for the information Mark. It's unfortunate that there seems to be an urge to turn the long world history of atrocities into some kind of contest, where the U.S. can be deemed worst. I really don't see how this kind of teaching is appropriate at the K-12 level.
I didn’t know this! Thanks for the info!
Pardonne mon français . . . Je suis obligé d'écrire dans plusieurs langues parce que : 1. La plupart des gens aux États-Unis ont subi un lavage de cerveau leur faisant croire que les Juifs sont leur salut ; et 2., leur anglais est de la merde et ils ne peuvent pas rester silencieux assez longtemps pour entendre ou voir ce qui se passe évidemment autour d'eux . . .
Le judéo-messianisme répand parmi nous son message empoisonné depuis près de deux mille ans. Les universalismes démocratique et communiste sont plus récents, mais ils n’ont fait que renforcer le vieux récit juif . . . Ce sont les mêmes idéaux . . . Les idéaux transnationaux, transraciaux, transsexuels, transculturels que ces idéologies nous prêchent (au-delà des peuples, des races, des cultures) et qui sont le subsistance quotidienne de nos écoles, dans nos médias, dans notre culture populaire, à nos universités, et sur nos rues, ont fini par réduire notre identité biosymbolique et notre fierté ethnique à leur expression minimale.
Les banquiers juifs ont inondé l’Europe de musulmans et l’Amérique de déchets du tiers-monde . . . L'exil comme punition pour ceux qui prêchent la sédition devrait être rétabli dans le cadre juridique de l'Occident . . . Le judaïsme, le christianisme, et l’islam sont des cultes de mort originaires du Moyen-Orient et totalement étrangers à l’Europe et à ses peuples . . . Nous socialistes nationaux est venu à libéré Paris, nous ne l'avons pas détruit.
On se demande parfois pourquoi la gauche européenne s’entend si bien avec les musulmans. Pourquoi un mouvement souvent ouvertement antireligieux prend-il le parti d’une religiosité farouche qui semble s’opposer à presque tout ce que la gauche a toujours prétendu défendre ? Une partie de l’explication réside dans le fait que l’Islam et le marxisme ont une racine idéologique commune : le judaïsme.
On dirait que Don Rumsfeld avait raison lorsqu’il disait : «L’Europe s’est décalé sur son axe», c’est le mauvais côté qui a gagné la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et cela devient chaque jour plus clair . . . Qu’a fait l’OTAN pour défendre l’Europe? Absolument rien . . . Mes ennemis ne sont pas à Moscou, à Damas, à Téhéran, à Riyad ou dans quelque croque-mitaine teutonique éthéré, mes ennemis sont à Washington, Bruxelles et Tel Aviv . . . Va te faire foutre toi et ton dieu juif.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/pardonne-mon-francais-va-te-faire
thank the gods, a voice of reason. Agree 100% about primary sources - even the NYT is full of clickwhores determined to spin up the outrage machine
It’s really disappointing isn’t it, that the New York Times isn’t a sober fact-based source of news???
I think it's always been the mouthpiece of the establishment, but the number of nutty, fringe hot takes has exploded over the last 10 years, in parallel with the fringy wingnuts inside the GOP. "Both sides"-ism up until the day the entire staff is sent to camps.
Forgive my French . . . I am compelled to write in several languages because: 1. Most people in the United States have been brainwashed into believing that Jews are their salvation; and 2., their English is shit and they can't stay silent long enough to hear or see what's obviously going on around them . . .
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and Communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals . . . The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and which are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, at our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our biosymbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.
Jewish bankers flooded Europe with Muslims and America with third-world garbage. Exile as punishment for those who preach sedition should be restored within the legal framework of the West . . . Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples . . . We National Socialists came to liberate Paris, we did not destroy it.
One sometimes wonders why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always claimed to stand for? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
It seems that Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," it was the wrong side that won World War II, and it is becoming clearer every day. What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing . . . My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic boogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv . . . Fuck you and your Jewish god.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/pardonne-mon-francais-va-te-faire
The "slaves developed skills" bit, as long as it's not mis-represented as a good thing about slavery (which I don't see this curriculum doing), is both true and important historically. To get the obvious point out of the way first - the same people, had they not been enslaved, could have developed even more skills and had a much better life while doing so. Slavery did not give them any learning opportunities that they couldn't have had, many times over, without slavery (and again, the curriculum does not say otherwise).
Case in point - reading. It's a while ago I read up on this, but I seem to remember that there was a rule on most plantations that slaves were not allowed to be taught to read and write, ever, lest they get ideas and the ability to organize and educate themselves and plan escapes and compose abolitionist pamphlets and the like. And of course, they did all these things anyway, the best they could under terrible conditions. Some of them read the Bible and were particularly impressed with Exodus where Moses frees the slaves from Egypt, and so we have the amazing spiritual Go Down Moses (Let My People Go). You can operate an Underground Railroad more efficiently when some of the people involved can read and write, too.
An accurate historical overview would make very clear that some slaves learnt to read and write despite, not because of, their owners' wishes. But learn they did - and saw it as an act of liberation. And of course at the extreme end of this process you end up with the writings of Douglass, who according to Wikipedia (quoting from a speech he wrote) "learned to spell from an old Webster's spelling-book and to read and write from posters on cellar and barn doors, while boys and men would help him".
“Slavery did not give them any learning opportunities that they couldn't have had, many times over, without slavery.” Exactly.
I do think the point (and we agree on this) was to highlight the amazing ability for people to do something to help themselves and others despite the terrible circumstances they found themselves in.
So so so great of you to link the actual standards. I grew up in the suburban South, and while my education was overall very good, there were definitely some pretty ugly ideas floating around in the background. The Lost Cause doctrine was still alive and well among some adults where I lived, and people were often very angry about what they saw as the “villainizing” of the Confederacy. In the South, in some pretty important ways, the losers got to write the history books about the Civil War – so anything that moves further away from that to a more nuanced place is worth supporting, in my opinion.
I remember as an elementary school-age kid being really impacted by the American Girl chapter books about Addie, whose story starts in slavery and continues with her and her family escaping to the Union states before the Civil War. It’s open-eyed both about the horrors of being a child working hard labor and subject to intense cruelty, and about the realities of racism and economic inequality even in the comparatively-better “free” states. Thinking back, I think these were a great way to introduce the atrocity of slavery — through the eyes of a little girl that a little girl could relate to. Fiction can be a good way to help younger kids start to contextualize the past; they might not be able to grasp the idea of centuries’ worth of time, but they can grasp stories, and the idea that things used to be very different from how they are now. It helped me start to grasp that I even knew people, other little kids in my classes, whose ancestors had experienced things the book characters had experienced. I’d be interested to know if Florida is including relevant fiction in the concurrent reading coursework. I’ll look into the rest of those standards!
Thanks for the comments, Sarah! It’s interesting to hear about your experiences with social studies as a kid in the South. I had no idea those ideas persisted as long as they did. (I was glad to read none of that in the standards.)
I wonder whether -- similar to my comment to Mari about the gruesome details of the Nazi camps being possibly even more distressing and impactful if you happen to know people who were personally there -- the “losers” in the South felt more keenly their personal losses (more so than, say, keeping slavery) if their grandparents or great-grandparents had died or had their farm destroyed in the war -- and of course one generally feels one’s own family had to have been the “good guys.”
I say this because I remember hearing some old timers say the war was about protecting their land, their farms etc. I don’t remember any old timers saying “and I wish slavery was preserved.” So I wonder whether many of the losers felt their families _were_villainized, whether they felt they _were_ protecting their families, and whether, say, not being able to vote until they swore a loyalty oath to a regime that destroyed their cities and farms truly felt like injustice and villainization.
I’m not saying I agree with any of that! I’m trying to understand why the Lost Cause and the belief in the South that they had been unfairly villainized persisted for so long, and whether that has to do with slavery or whether it has to do with knowing people who were personally affected or harmed in the war.
And... it might explain why with time and distance, we’ve got a more uniform understanding of the war, and those ideas are dying out. No one knows anyone personally affected anymore. Even if your family’s farm or neighborhood or city was destroyed nearly 200 years ago, with time you move on from that and take a broader view. You don’t feel those losses as personally.
I love your thoughts about fiction helping kids understand the past. I’m a bit too old (!) to have been reading the American Girl books but I’ve often heard that they are really good. That’s really a great idea to use fiction in this way, especially because our teaching of history tends to focus on political events and the few people involved in those events -- and not regular people who lived through it all.
There is a great podcast called Inward Empire that includes a fascinating episode about how the Civil War was memorialized and narrativized. In particular, that it took almost an entire generation after the war for its horrors and realities to start to be acknowledged alongside the glory and heroism (on both sides). I’ll drop the link here for anyone interested: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/inwardempirepodcast/episodes/2015-09-03T19_05_01-07_00
I wish I had better context for why some middle-class people in the suburban South still felt such a sense of grievance about the Civil War in the early 2000s - but I was a kid and had no idea. I still don’t. Somehow, some people still took very personally events that had really not touched anyone in their families in living memory. (I actually remember that “people are still mad about Sherman burning down Atlanta” WAS in the 8th grade curriculum.)
Overall, though, I just remember a lot of insistence, not in the curriculum but by opponents of the curriculum, that the Civil War was not about slavery at all, and that that was a lie told by arrogant northerners who looked down on the South and wanted to tar everyone there as a racist. “It was actually about states’ rights and the Confederacy was defending the Constitution!” was a line my classmates parroted. There was nothing some people hated more than Black people who they saw as milking the atrocity of slavery to get “handouts.” Again, I didn’t learn this in school, but it was still there in the culture around me - a majority didn’t have to believe it for it to be in the air. People would say, “I don’t have anything against black people, so long as they don’t think I owe them something.” And this tied into more mainstream conservative Republican views against welfare and affirmative action.
But I think you’re right about some of the motivations there. I think there’s a sense of shame and denial that they or their ancestors would have risen up in support of something so awful, that there must have been something more justifiable in their involvement. And to some degree they’re not wrong - not every confederate soldier came from a slaveholding family and the economic and political background to the war is extremely complex. At the same time, I still find their sense that anyone was holding them personally in contempt for the actions of their ancestors to be misled.
These new standards do not seem to me to be in any way feeding that narrative. And that should be counted as a success.
I’ll definitely check out the podcast -- thanks, Sarah!
That’s so interesting -- having more details about what you learned and what the environment was. Yes by the early 2000s, even someone’s great-grandpa probably wouldn’t have known anyone personally affected -- maybe a very weak link, like his own great-grandpa being bitter about what happened to his family. It’s a stretch.
Probably yes -- the shame of slavery probably made people in the South wish the war were about other things.
And in the lifetime of our own parents/ grandparents, Jim Crow was going strong.
So complicated.
It sure makes me feel a lot of sympathy for anyone tasked with trying to distill all of this into a curriculum for 12 year olds.
Yes! I read tons of the American Girl books as a kid, and they were great introductions to other times, places, and ways of life. They showed darkness, but it always felt age appropriate to me and never like more than I could handle.
Amen sister. Yours is only the second place I've seen pushback on this nonsense narrative. (The other was the reliable BARpod.) I'm sure there are more criticisms out there, and more to come, because this boneheaded hysteria is so easy to puncture.
But then again, I thought the same when it came to MSM's willful misinterpretation of "very fine people on both sides" - I figured the gullible hysterics will eventually just listen to the whole recording and will realize they are barking up the wrong tree on this one - and I was so completely wrong.
ANYWAY
The first outrage article I read was from Heather Cox Richardson. Despite her being a Biden cheerleader in all ways, I enjoy and respect her perspective because at least she is transparent about her politics and bias. But her takes on this topic were just so, so bad... kudos to her though for at least including a link to the standards that she so completely misrepresented and misinterpreted. I scanned that mother twice, looking for bs and nonsense, and studied carefully any place that discussed slavery... and found exactly what you found. Academic standards that were actually far superior to what I experienced in my Virginia childhood. Far more willing to explore slavery and associated topics with the depth and nuance they deserve, far more willing to grant the enslaved genuine humanity and agency. I actually felt like I had somehow disconnected from reality because what I read had no connection to the imaginary pro-slavery document that existed in so many other pundit's fever dreams. Not the first time I've felt this.
I am also liberal. Both a classical liberal and a (class-focused) progressive. I am not inclined to favor Florida or anything that DeSantis endorses. And that unnecessary disclaimer aside, I found nothing remotely "problematic" in the curriculum and found so much that was laudable.
Oh yes -- thanks for the reminder of the “willful misinterpretation of ‘very fine people on both sides’ " -- as much as I detested Trump, it was obvious that he wasn’t referring to neo-Nazis.
That’s a perfect example of manufactured outrage over something that didn’t happen, which divides us and prevents us from doing anything useful with our time on Earth.
And absolutely: “I actually felt like I had somehow disconnected from reality because what I read had no connection to the imaginary pro-slavery document....”
It is actually disorienting to have the media and your friends and neighbors so worked up about something which seems not to have happened. It’s hard to speak when people are busy arguing over imaginary things. But if we see this stuff, I think it’s important to try to speak.
I agree I saw nothing objectionable and much that was good in the curriculum. But people of goodwill are always going to disagree about what should be included at what age, and what should be left out, and what’s politically relevant or concordant with their worldview or agreeable to their communities and what’s not. I assume the people in Florida will create different curricula from the people in Massachusetts, with everyone acting with the best of intentions. If there are actually problems with the curriculum or discussions to be had to include more of X or less of Y, we aren’t in a position to have those discussions as long as we’re screaming about a document that doesn’t exist.
You hit this one out of the park Dolly! (That’s really good in case you are not a baseball fan). I couldn’t agree more.
It’s really disappointing to see obviously intelligent people (on both sides) reach for the outrage button rather than stepping back to think about a proposition through the lens of actual experience. Maybe we have all been taught to discount experience as simply anecdotal and without significance. In the process we seem to have thrown away basic common sense. It’s high time we got reacquainted with what we used to call “using our heads”.
I hope this excellent post helps point us in the right direction; as you point out, we will all benefit.
Thanks Heyjude for the kind comments and thoughtful input! We do need to use our common sense on all sides!!
Thank you for this. I wish your article could go viral because so many people are misinformed on this issue. Even I, who am very skeptical of what I read in the NYT, I believed their propaganda relative to the Floridians.. And the points you make regarding the effects of these lies are excellent. The result is the impossibility of any dialogue with the opposite side.
100%
If there’s one thing this country needs, it’s dialog about what is genuinely in our collective best interests, and not these endless rounds of screaming and accusations that go nowhere and accomplish nothing.
Great post
Thanks!
Thanks Dolly, this is awesome, and also funny!
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Late to the party once again. Someone- perhaps you - commented about judging history through today's lens. That excellent point often gets lost in the weeds. The same happens when we judge our fellow citizens based on generalizations, such as skin color, geography, lot in life, etc. I believe we do it because it simplifies. We project preconceived notions onto people and situations in order to quickly assess surroundings. That serves us well when confronting danger. . It also detracts from our ability to learn about others when we rely on this instinct too heavily. We make the same mistake with history
We simply cannot walk in other's shoes. I've worked and raised funds for a local organization that assists down--on-their-luck families with long term supportive housing and case management. Rule #1 - meet and accept them where they are. What a gift. I wish we could all learn how powerful that is. Race, religion, orgin, single, married, doesn't matter. They get a reset because they're allowed it
Our tenancy to simplify makes sense in an environment with information overload. We must, however, turn that impulse off when it impedes learning. We unfairly judge people and events when paradigms rule our thoughts
This article demonstrates your ability to do that, Dolly. Most liberals freak when they hear, "Florida". Conservatarians, such as me, make the same mistake with, "California". Those labels block reasonable thought, right off the bat. The same happens when we cast today's mores onto history
Rock and roll burst onto the scene only 70 years ago, bringing with it a tidal wave of cultural change. It brought risquity, drugs, rebellion, the sexual revolution in many ways. It gave youth, long told to shut up at the dinner table, a voice. It gave black people a platform, unimaginable just decades prior
Elvis lit parent's hair on fire in the 50's. Imagine them watching Miley Cirus today. Kids now would look at Elvis as a prude, if they even know of him. Chuck Berry captured that era better than anyone, using very tame lyrics. Is it fair to downplay their impact by using today's standards? Of course not. They are revolutionaries. It's a totally different world, thanks largely to guys like that
While I'm not comparing music to slavery, it demonstrates the lunacy of applying modern morality to historical figures and events. History informs us, not the other way around. Modern labels work the same way. They cloud our ability to assess based on truth and merit. Your article perfectly articulates the danger in using generalizations in lieu of critical thinking. Thank you!
Bravo. I've made similar points about Trump criticisms. In my view Trump is awful yet TDS is real.
The more progressives engage in TDS, the more conservatives feel entitled to tune progressives out when they criticize Trump. Don't let right-wingers tune out criticisms of Trump - make sure the criticisms are accurate.
Dolly, thanks for the conversations. If you decide to write again, I would be interested.
All the best.
You didn't even know that the Big Bang of the White American middle classes, which was the GI bill where the government would provide FHA loans, was denied for 98% WWII Blabk GI.
It turns out that there are things called computers that can be networked together. This allows them to make computation with sophisticated algorithms.
Not only can we track the disparities from 1880s through 2018, we can also track the economic and political policies targeted specifically against Black people.
We can also the disparities of salaries between Black people and White people in all the professions.
How many times have your White male relatives been stopped by the police in a year?
Post 2020 Presidential elections, the counties that were called in to question were the predominantly African American ones. That's an attack on the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.
This is the problem with White Conservatives that they think there Gods chosen people, and should have complete power when it comes to who governs the Republic.
That's where all the other sins come from.
Your lack of understanding of basic science principles to understand that climate change is real, man made and happening in real time. Thought it was all fake.
Welcome to the new world order of extreme weather events.
Structural Institutional Racism can be proven, just like climate change can be proven.
If you don't want to hear about the disparities, and so called Victimhood, then stop making Victims.
Florida State Education office just made
Prager University their vendors for the school systems.
The curriculum doesn't allow talking about White privilege or Systematic racism.
Your blind benevolence when it comes to interpretation of the curriculum, will be shattered when you witness what they are really saying and doing.
This is what comes from creating another White Echo Chamber; only this one's Liberal.
It's a complete Whitewasdhing of actual history.
"SLAVERY WAS TERRIBLE " But when you look at it, it wasn't as bad as most people think. For instance, by constantly keeping enslaved Black women pregnant, other enslaved Black women became skilled Midwives. Which was an upside of the biocapitalism of breeding more slaves.
This is how YOU sound in this article to an ACTUAL BLACK WOMAN.
I don't care about what you did and didn't learn about African American History. Your job was to educate yourself of the history to understand. To understand concurrently to the historical narratives they are presenting, there were Race Riots, lynching, Black women and girls being raped, intellectually property like invention being stolen and patented by White men. The kidnapping of Freedman and woman to take them down to the Slave States to be enslaved. All posr-slavey in the North.
Did you ever, as a White Liberal woman, think to contact African American Historians, to present them with the curriculum, so they could give you a thorough understanding and deconstruction of how the curriculum Whitewashes history and the underlying agenda by the Conservatives?
This why you have failed, because you gave "facts" without any context because you don't know the History.
Your comments are a perfect example of the problem I’m talking about. I’d like to hear you, but it’s hard because you sound unhinged. If “how I sound” to you is that “it wasn’t as bad as most people think” I end up thinking you’re either not listening to me honestly or you’re not quite tethered to reality. Either way, that makes it very difficult for me to hear you or to take your comments seriously.
I wish you well.
I’m not certain, but I believe I read that Black historians were instrumental in creating this curriculum.
The curriculum doesn't explain the creation of Structural Institutional Racism.
The curriculum doesn't address the generationally cost attached to Slavery, 400 Black Communities genocied and covered up with man made lakes.
The curriculum doesn't explain that the most exported products from America has been the Confederate Flag. Anti Black racism has been Global for over a hundred years
The almost Bicentennial history of Irish descendants of beating, incarnations and gunning down Black people. They majority of them were the slave catchers. And this community created the Police and Fire Departments.
The curriculum akin to teaching Creationism vs Evolution.
Black people are still fighting for the right to vote in 2023.
Here are some books for you since you asked for sources.
Khalil Gilbran Muhammad: " The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime and the Making of Modern Urban America."
Douglas A. Blackmon: "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War Ii"
Harriet A. Washington: " Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. "
Ibram X Kendi, Keisha N. Blain: " Four Hundred Souls: A Community History of African American, 1619 - 2019."
Annette Gordon-Reed, a black historian and Harvard professor, has written extensively about Jefferson and specifically Sally Hemings and her family. The Hemingses of Monticello was an eye opening book for me, not just because it was so detailed and well researched, but because of how sensitively Gordon-Reed treated the subject matter.
Gordon-Reed is not a conservative, not by a long shot. Yet she asked questions about the agency of Sally Hemings in her relationship with Jefferson. For instance, Hemings had the opportunity to be free while she lived in Paris with Jefferson--in fact, her brother took that opportunity (slavery was illegal on French soil, so any enslaved person brought there could essentially defect and become free French people). But Sally did not. She chose to stay with Jefferson--and this was *before* she had any of his children. And she wasn't house bound; she and her brother had freedom of movement around Paris while there.
Of course we can't know for sure why she stayed. I don't think anyone could accuse Gordon-Reed of whitewashing. And not once does she imply that slavery wasn't all that bad. But she does emphasize that slaves were not "just slaves." They were human beings who still had individuality and agency, even when their agency was violently suppressed. Some enslaved people were highly skilled artisans, and some exercised incredible ingenuity to escape the most horrific, suppressive regime.
Growing up, I learned about the horrors of American slavery and lynching and Jim Crow. But I didn't learn nearly as much abut the individual human beings who were enslaved, their creativity and genius. I don't understand how doing so could be bad.
I haven’t read that book (and didn’t know that about Sally Hemings) but now I really want to. Thanks for a thought-provoking comment.
Slavery was unbelievably horrible. It doesn’t even need to be said (except that some people seem to think that point is in doubt among Americans? It’s not.)
But there’s a point at which we do lose sight of the individuals and the lives they lived and all they achieved. To recognize the individuals is not to say “so, in conclusion, slavery wasn’t so bad.” No. It WAS just as bad as everyone agrees. And so was post-slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, all of it. That’s not even up for discussion, because no one thinks that.
But enslaved people were not cartoon characters, or players in a melodrama, forever tied to the tracks. They had full lives. They didn’t exist in order for us to exploit them for political points while ignoring their full humanity.
Wish I had read this before I wrote my comment about world history used as a contest. Your last paragraph says exactly what I was fumbling to express!
I loved that book, it opened my mind and presented possibilities to ponder about both Hemmings and Jefferson. I saw them both as complex human beings, just like me and everybody I know. You write: "But she does emphasize that slaves were not "just slaves." They were human beings who still had individuality and agency, even when their agency was violently suppressed." Such an important point. I think this is what some so called "heterodox" black intellectuals like Glenn Loury present as well, pushing back on the narrative of condemned and eternal victimhood as being far, far from a state of true emancipation.
Hi Valerie--I am pretty much in accord with Dolly's perspective on these standards, but as another white liberal woman I took heed of your suggestion to ask a friend who is a very distinguished African American historian what he thought of the standards. We both read through them and discussed. As with most of the commenters here, he made it clear that any whiff, any suggestion that slavery was meant to be a vocational school for African Americans is highly offensive. But after reading through it, he said his take was that this is clearly not what the guidelines are suggesting. I did see a piece by John McWhorter (another distinguished black intellectual) saying it could have been worded better, but pointing out all the great things in the curriculum. And this piece just came out by Glenn Loury, another black intellectual giant, a conservative who always has interesting things to say. I realize you probably don't agree with this or with Loury in general, but you might find it interesting; https://glennloury.substack.com/p/what-florida-is-and-isnt-teaching
They are trying to blame whole communities Genocided on Black people. It's like Trump saying in 2016 when different White Supremacy groups meeting together in SC to protest the possible dismantling of Confederate Monuments and proceeded to try to inflict violence of those who on the opposing side, "That these sides were Equal"
To not talk about Structural Institutional Racism is akin to not talking about Rape Culture in this country.
Our relationship with our White cousins has been a 435 year of cyclular destruction of Black assets and wealth accumulation.
It's like being in a relationship with an Sadistically abuse husband. When that wife gets an income that allows her to leave, that's he beats her or out right kills her.
But now White people don't have create a homicidal mob to attack Black people. The created disparities are embedded in the Socioeconomic System, The Political System, The Banking and Finance System, The Justice System, Employment System and The Educational System
I don't think Dolly is attacking black people. Is that what you actually think? I certainly don't believe this distinguished black historian who I asked to look into it is "attacking black people" when he says he does not find the phrase being discussed in the Florida curriculum to be racist or problematic. You told Dolly that is what she should do, after all, ask a black historian. This man is an EXPERT in black history. I am not, and I doubt you are. In fact, he looked through the entire curriculum and was pleased and surprised to see African American history in the other categories of history--as it should be. African American history is American history. I do not think that Glenn Loury, another distinguished black academic is attacking black people by questioning how this narrative has been spun out. He and others question the validity of the "systemic racism" frame you believe to be the only reality worth discussing. I agree it's part of the reality, including the destruction of assets and wealth, but I don't think it's the entire story. Keeping that as the entire story also keeps a narrative of victimhood for black Americans, a story that many reject. I also do not want to see everything through the lens of "rape culture," even though sexual abuse and rape is such a serious problem.
But I can see there is no point in discussing further, as you do not actually wish to learn, engage, or discuss. You did not even comment on the information I shared with you, information you asked for. You wish to see the world through a certain lens, for whatever reasons. I do wish you well.