Our National Narrative, Part 2
...and what it gets wrong
Photo by David R. Tribble
American history, like all history and like our American narrative, has always been slanted towards the victors. But today, and especially since the publication of the 1619 Project, a NYT Pulitzer Prize winning collection of essays on the legacy of slavery here in the United States that seeks to include how American Slavery influenced and defined America, we’ve seen dramatic pushback against bending the American narrative in our education system. For the first time in my memory, books are being banned while teachers and librarians are being fired from their jobs.
On May 30th , this year, I published a piece on the pushback that The 1619 Project has received. In a nutshell, I’d say that my long-held position has been that the historians and scholars who objected to the piece were not so much in disagreement with the basic facts as presented in the twelve essays, but in the unflattering conclusions that were drawn about America and the bending of the narrative about our country. I recently touched again on the intractability of this narrative here when I talked about Frederick Douglass and Independence Day, 1852.
The May piece generated some civil conversation that dove directly into what The Civil Conversation Project is about. One piece of correspondence was from a friend and landed in my email. But this is no ordinary friend. He’s a friend who chairs a college history department. I know when I’m up against a big gun.
The other piece of correspondence was in the comments section here - and starting with the next paragraph. I asked for and graciously received permission from Mr. Peter Anderson to republish his comment and to engage in conversation here rather than where it would be kind of out-of-sight in the comment section.
Mr. Anderson bought up a ton of points worthy of conversation.
Mr. Anderson: “I went on at some length because Hannah-Jones’ overcatastrophizing (and remember that is not in any way meant to say that discrimination is not reprehensible, but that, bad though it in fact is, there has recently been a predominant tendency to characterize it as much worse than even that).”
Me: I don’t think that I’m going out on much of a limb here when I speculate that Black Americans view discrimination with MUCH, MUCH more pain, fear, disgust, historical perspective and dismay then do White men. Discrimination in medicine and in housing has been more than inconvenient to Black Americans. Here and there, it has killed us.
The phrase, “From the river to the sea” doesn’t mean much to me. To an Israeli? It lands like a death sentence. It’ a matter of perspective informed by lived experience. I think it’s for the discriminated against to determine how reprehensible discrimination is. Sort of like the controversy over the football team named, The Redskins. The name was not offensive to the White owner.
When the Central Park Five were (falsely) arrested for a brutal rape in Central Park and Donald Trump ran a full page ad in the New York Times advocating that they be killed, that’s a level of discrimination that goes far, far beyond being merely reprehensible.
Mr. Anderson: Examples are rife through the new race vernacular. The word discrimination, as an example, has replaced by privilege to describe the wrongs done by the white population. But when I get stopped by a cop for a broken tail light, the reason I am not afraid of being shot is because the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law is written right there in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, not because I’m somehow privileged (i.e. singled out for special protections). The reason that black men too often do not enjoy that right is because they are discriminated against not because I’m privileged.
Me: I agree with Mr. Anderson about language and specifically with the word, “Privilege.” I’ve come to despise that word in conversations about race. While White privilege is a very real and important concept for people to understand if they are to understand America’s thing with race, it’s a trigger that feels inaccurate even to me and is going to receive pushback from all but the most guilt-ridden White people. I have cringed many times when White folks have gone on and on about their ‘privilege’.
However, the reason you don’t fear getting shot for that busted taillight is not because you know that per the 5th (and 14th) amendments, the cop is not allowed to deny you due process, but because White people do not get shot for a busted taillight. Period. Ever. White people do not jump out of their car and run away from a situation they are terrified to be in, giving the cop some reason - in his or her mind - to shoot. As did Walter Scott - and many others who have been killed. The cop, White or Black is not terrified of you. The cop is not thinking, “Hey, this guy’s White, so I’m not going to shoot him. I’m going to respect his constitutional rights. In fact I’m not even going to search his car for drugs even though statistically I’m more likely to find drugs in his car then in the car of a Black American.” She’s thinking “I’m going to cite him (or not) for the busted taillight.” That’s a privilege, regardless of what one calls it.
I’m not a historian, but when I read The 1619 Project, I did wonder mightily about the connection of the American Revolution to the need to protect the institution of slavery as a key reason - or even any reason at all - for the colonies to declare their independence from Britain. Hannah-Jones has backed off and stated that if she were to write this again she’d use different language and downplay the connection. And indeed in the 1619 Project material that has since been disseminated to schools that have requested it, evidently the language has been changed.
But then, in poking around, I came across this: In 2019, The Root Magazine, co-founded by Harvard Professor Doctor Henry Louis Gates Junior, wrote this: “Their (the authors) final point is one that was recently explained to me by Dr. Greg Carr, Howard University’s chair of Afro American Studies and the aforementioned Henry Louis Gates. Namely, that the prospect of the British crown eliminating slavery was a major factor in the American Revolution. There is a whole book about the subject—Gerald Horne’s The Counterrevolution of 1776.” So now, I dunno. Given Doctor Gates nationally recognized stature as an American historian, he cannot be taken lightly.
If the name Henry Louis Gates Junior sounds familiar it may be because Doctor Gates is arguably the pre-eminent historian in America of American history and unarguably the preeminent Black historian in America of American history and my (somewhat) friend. If you’re not so interested in history, but his name sounds familiar anyway, he’s the guy who while fumbling for his keys to unlock his own front door in Cambridge MA in 2009, was arrested by Cambridge police for the old catchall, “disorderly conduct.” Obama made some ill-advised comments he later regreted and subsequently invited both Professor Gates and the arresting officer to the White House for a beer and a hug - subsequently referred to as “The Beer Summit.”
I’m not sure that I’d agree with Mr. Anderson that “What they (the historians) challenged is not that America has had a checkered past, but Hannah-Jones top-line claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery [as abolitionist sentiment rose there].”
There are 12 essays in the project and only one referenced the American Revolution. Hannah-Jones’ essay was indeed a strong and inflammatory claim, but there’s no denying there was a lot of meat in the 12 chapters of the project and I would argue that as attention getting as the Revolutionary War claim was, perhaps even of “top-line” status, it was still just one of many claims. I think it has received this top-line status because it was a claim that was both extraordinarily eye-popping and ultimately rather thoroughly dismissed - maybe.
Having been able to dismiss or at least cast shade on that one claim - while merely squawking about others - has enabled historians to largely dismiss the entire project, or at least to cast shade on the entire effort. And that’s a shame. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that each of the dissenting historians - all of whom were White - who jointly wrote a letter to the editor to the NY Times, decry the many and largely successful efforts to teach a dumbed down, thoroughly sanitized version of American history. But by dismissing such a valuable project covering ground that few if any of us were taught in school, they struck a blow against the very thing they claim to support. Open and thorough teaching of American history, warts and all.
I do not “reject the historians’ point” about factual accuracy. I’m neither arrogant nor secure enough in my knowledge to argue with bona-fide historians. My point, without the ability to look into their hearts and minds of the dissenters, is this: That although they were able to pick some of Hannah-Jones’ history apart, the burr under their saddle was not factual inaccuracy. It was the Project’s reimagining of our vaunted national narrative that teaches White Americans to be proud of their ancestors and teaches Black Americans to be proud of… what… their ancestors’ owners? A narrative so powerful that Frederick Douglass had to remind the ladies of the Rochester Anti-slavery society, as I wrote back on the 4th, about the power of the narrative when he felt compelled to point out “the hypocrisy of the nation where the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.”
None of the signers of the infamous letter were Black. All of them were White. Or they certainly appear that way. I am not aware of any Black historian who has dismissed the project. Does that mean anything? It means something.
At any rate, Doctor Gates invited Hannah-Jones to talk with his class at Harvard about the project for over two hours. While Hannah-Jones does almost all the talking and Doctor Gates doesn’t say much other than to prod and question Hannah-Jones, I’ll again go out on a limb and suggest that Gates inviting her to speak at his class signifies a respect for the project.
Mr. Anderson: “…(neither was) there any support for lumping the historians’ critique into the moderates view that African Americans should just be more patient, 160 years and counting after the Civil War. Neither was that in any way connected to their concerns.”
Me: Correct, for sure the historians did not come out and say, “Hey, Black Americans, be patient. Equality will happen.” That’s just me having heard and still hearing on a somewhat regular basis, people saying exactly that… “This takes time. Be patient.” Apparently it does take time. Something over 405 years.
Mr. Anderson:“I read the historian's objections to the 1619 story, and I checked their footnotes. Nowhere do they say, suggest or imply, as you concluded, that there aren’t many dark parts of America’s past, or that George Washington did not have a sordid side in his slave holdings…
Me: Correct, I concluded that myself. To be clear, this is not something the historians said or implied, and my apologies if I inferred they did. But it’s just part of the bending and changing of the narrative that I still believe is what got so stuck in their craw. And I’ll throw this in: I’m sure that the dissenting historians weren’t even aware of what stuck in their craw. I believe that all of the historian are vocal advocates for racial justice. I believe that the narrative is as invisible to them as it was to the ladies of Rochester. Had any of them been consulted in 1852 by the ladies of the Rochester Anti-slavery Society about the wisdom of having Frederick Douglass as featured speaker on Independence Day, they’d all have thought it was great idea. That’s kind of my point. Our narrative is so strong, so embedded, that it is taken as unquestioned gospel. Even by renowned scholars.
Mr. Anderson: “I could go on and on like this, but that would be too much for a comment. Words have been manipulated with the actual purpose of making these appear worse and to magnify guilt, possibly out of anger (understandable anger!) or possibly notoriety or political advantage.
But for your purposes, which is to encourage conversation between those two hostile tribes, coming down in support of the gambit cannot but hurt like the dickens as it signals to the right that there is no fairness here, just more left-wing bull shit ...aimed at tearing down America etc.
Further, that feeds into the whole diversity, equity and inclusion project today, with its you’re either an oppressor or someone oppressed. All the reliable research shows that it doesn’t work, but it keeps on going diverting resources away for effective efforts to overcome our divides.
Me: I don’t think it’s fair to imply that all DEI training and positioning is “you’re either an oppressor or someone oppressed.” But I am no fan of training that does. I’m not even particularly a fan of DEI training. If it’s voluntary, it only attracts people who already belong to the tribe. If it’s required, I struggle to envision a person entering the training as a racist and leaving as an anti-racist.
Mr. Anderson: There are ways to effectively address discrimination that has been proven by 75 years’ worth of research and that is inter-group contact theory, in which one engages with folks from the other side until we come to see each other as people.
Me: Diversity and inter-group contact has been around the workplace for a very long time. Maybe being in association with one another leads people to see each other as people, and not ‘other’. But when people go home at the end of their work day, they largely go home to neighborhoods populated with folks who look like them.
When they recreate on weekends, they largely recreate with people who look like them.
And when I was in Vietnam, Black and White Marines worked side bye side. But it was still the most self-segregated and violently racist place I have ever been.
Mr. Anderson: If we want to actually see civil conversations, that is the direction I hope would receive serious consideration.”
Me: Well said, Mr. Anderson. Thank you for your deep, thoughtful, and meaningful comments. Like you, civil and informed conversations are exactly what I would like to see.
So…our narrative… there you have it. I believe that I can see and I hope I can understand Mr. Anderson’s points. But it remains my firm belief that so powerful is our national narrative that it’s the bending of the narrative that is what the historians found so bothersome. I’m not asking nor insisting that anybody believe me. I could be wrong. It’s unlikely I will ever know. But I’m asking people to consider it as you contemplate actually engaging in discussions about America’s thing with race. If Nicole Hannah-Jones did get some history wrong, you might wonder about all the history you wrongly learned that was slanted or absent and wonder why there was never such a kerfuffle about getting the history of Black Americans right as there has been about getting the national narrative of White America right.
Think what you may about Nicole Hannah-Jones, originator of the 1619 project. Maybe she was wrong about the involvement of slavery in the American Revolution. Maybe she overstated it. Maybe she was wrong about other things. Hell, maybe she was wrong about everything. But her words ring true. “What I’m arguing is that our founding ideals were great and powerful. Had we in fact built a country based on those founding ideals, then we would have the most amazing country the earth has ever seen.”
Would have…
Sources:
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/08/the-alamo-battle-over-texas-history/619664/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/12/federal-funding-children-food-program-rejected/
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/master-counter-narratives-same-facts-different-stories/
https://www.macfound.org/press/perspectives/challenging-master-narrative
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/12/federal-funding-children-food-program-rejected/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/forget-the-alamo-excerpt-three-texans-bust-myths
Thanks for another great post. I’m surprised to hear you say that you don’t see much value in DEI trainings. Did I understand that correctly? I had a fabulous professor for a cultural diversity class I was required to take in grad school, and it helped me come to grips with “white privilege” in a more powerful way than ever, very uncomfortable but unforgettable. The agency where I work now has DEI trainings every year or so, and those seem very superficial. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
The American Narrative, the Texas Narrative, creation stories from every society and religion, etc. are deeply ingrained in our collective psyche and passed down in tribal lore and formal education. When an error or inconsistency in the story is brought forth, I believe that there’s an unconscious reaction of denial. It’s too difficult to accept that our elders and educators may not have been as wise as we thought they were or that, even worse, we were lied to. As well, once we have been made aware of the error, we may be too embarrassed to admit we believed the lie/fell for the scam. And then we continue to share the narrative, possibly with even more vigor, doubling-down by making things harder for the denialist and easier for the believer.