Ross Douthat on Structural Racism

|

Brilliant column by Douthat:

What's really inflaming today's fights, though, is that the structural-racist diagnosis isn't being offered on its own. Instead it's yoked to two sweeping theories about how to fight the problem it describes.

First, there is a novel theory of moral education, according to which the best way to deal with systemic inequality is to confront its white beneficiaries with their privileges and encourage them to wrestle with their sins.

Second, there is a Manichaean vision of public policy, in which all policymaking is either racist or antiracist, all racial disparities are the result of racism — and the measurement of any outcome short of perfect "equity" may be a form of structural racism itself…

The impulses these ideas encourage take different forms in different institutions, but they usually circle around to similar goals. First, the attempt to use racial-education programs to construct a stronger sense of shared white identity, on the apparent theory that making Americans of European ancestry think of themselves as defined by a toxic "whiteness" will lead to its purgation. Second, the deconstruction of standards that manifest racial disparities, on the apparent theory that if we stop using gifted courses or standardized tests, the inequities they reveal will cease to matter… The [latter idea] extends structural analysis beyond what it can reasonably bear, into territory where white supremacy supposedly explains Asian American success on the SAT.

But precisely because they don't follow from modest and defensible conceptions of systemic racism, smart progressives in the media often retreat to those modest conceptions when challenged by conservatives — without acknowledging that the dubious conceptions are a big part of what's been amplifying controversy, and conjuring up dubious Republican legislation in response.

Back in 1991, I heard Derrick Bell, one of the founders of Critical Race Theory, defend the importance of making white people more aware of their whiteness, and congratulate himself on persuading some of his students, particularly a Jewish one, think of themselves as white. So at least some of this is deeply ingrained, but the idea that making Americans of European descent more inclined toward white identitarianism is going to have long-term positive consequences is, well, nuts.

I would add one more factor to Douthat's analysis. As with the 1619 Project and Kendi and Reynolds, Stamped: Racism, Antiracism and You, activist historians and journalists play fast and loose with facts to suit their historical narratives. They also seem impervious to acknowledging, much less correcting, even the most glaring errors when pointed out to them. For example (in honor of Independence Day), no, the American Revolution was not fought primarily to prevent Great Britain from abolishing slavery in the colonies. Those who insist that public schools should teach made-up nonsense as historical fact in service of radical ideologies that most Americans don't agree with will rightly get political blowback.

NEXT: Immigration and the Principles of the Declaration of Independence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They want me to identify with my whiteness?

    Ummm….. OK.

    1. It is simple except to the lawyer dipshit. This is Chinese Commie Party talking points to weaken our nation. Racial struggle has replaced class struggle. Our poor are so well off, class struggle does not work.

      The remedy is simple. All race whores get cancelled. Someone so much as utter the word, diversity, the institution gets shut down. All race whores are arrested, tried, and sent to prison.

    2. My kids are half Asian and my wife tried to instill a sense of pride in our children of their Asian heritage. In fact they used the term Asian Pride so often they just shortened it to AP. They would cheer Asian accomplishments like Gary Locke becoming the first Asian governor, or Ichiro winning the MVP.

      We joked about that it would not be appropriate for me to follow suit and start talking White Pride every time a White player dunked in a basketball game, or a white politician won against a minority.

      But now I guess I’m going to have to start talking to my kid more about White Pride to be Anti-racist. I’ll probably have to get a few tattoos extolling my White heritage too,

      1. White pride has a history, and it’s all about punching down at minorities.

        But you knew that.

        1. And Asian Pride doesn’t punch down too?

          And if having pride in your race is “punching” (as you seem to concede) whether up, down, or sideways, then why should we be promoting racial pride as a concept?

          1. Surely it does sometimes. But it doesn’t have that history in America, no.

            Again, you knew that.

            1. Well what I did teach my kids is any kind of more than a passing pride in ones race is a sign of an inferiority complex, trying to convince yourself something you deep down you know isn’t true, or sometimes a sense that you yourself are the inferior one, and belonging to something bigger than yourself will raise you up higher than you could on your own merits.

              My ex-wife belongs to a couple of Asian civil rights organizations, and my son who went to several meetings observed that all the members were 2nd 3rd and 4th generation immigrants who felt themselves over assimilated and mainly belonged as a sense of asserting an Asian identity. New immigrants had no interest because having reached the land of opportunity were too busy enjoying the fruits of their labor, than carping about perceived injustice.

              In any case racial pride is an ‘othering’ that is divisive and makes racial tensions worse.

          2. … is “punching” (as you seem to concede) …

            The whole directional punching concept is simply circular rationalization by the sarcastrian types. They have to be able to differentiate from when you do it vs when they do it. This makes racial pride by favored groups good and racial pride by unfavored groups bad with the differences being purely rhetorical.

            You aren’t going to get anywhere with a conversation about directional punching, the dishonesty is baked in.

        2. So you’re saying that “some bad people share your heritage therefore you can’t take any pride in your heritage.” That’s just stupid and racist. It’s every bit as bigoted and harmful as the things you claim to be railing about.

          1. Why would anyone take pride in one’s heritage? It’s not an accomplishment; it’s just an accident of birth.

        3. Enough with the punching down crap.

          Punching is a problem. Complaints about punching “down” come from people who think one side ought to be permitted to dish out punches without having to worry about any coming back their own way.

          The moment you talk about “punching down”, you confess that you’re fine with punching, you just want a double standard as to who can do it.

        4. What a load of Bull c * * p, structural racism means the very laws that protect criminal defendants with the right to be innocent before proven guilty, to have an attorney, right to vote and much more are “racist”? Ross Douthat is no more credible on this as he is not credible as a Catholic. Trotskyite and Leninist neo-bolshevik lies believed by racist blacks, too stupid because they hate more than they think, to realize that they are forging their own chains of slavery at the urging of the very peoples who like their Sephardic trader coreligionists who urged the Spanish crown to let them start what became the trans-Atlantic slave trade and trafficked roughly 9 million African slaves to what became Latin America. Tiny Cuba had 16 times more slaves than the US. Not surprised Reason pushes Marxist lies, Ayn Rand born Alissa Rosenbaum was a bolshevik, an admirer of Trotsky (and like him changed her name to a gentile sounding one (Alice O’Conner) to distract from her intent) until she saw she was never going to be a self appointed wannabe grand high poohbah of upper butt crack and left the USSR. first, the Brits were never anti-slavery, slavery was illegal in the colony that later became the US until in 1655, a wealthy black tobacco planter who had taken the name Antonio Johnson from Virginia (he had escaped slavery in a Spanish Caribbean colony) testified in to an English crown court judge he was entitled to violate his contract with his fellow African, the indentured servant Casor because his African culture allowed him to enslave other Africans. The corrupt British judge sided with Johnson and that was the start of slavery in the colony, and it was a black thing enabled by a judge sent by the king of England. Prior to that the only slaves in this land were those enslaved by the Indians. Democrat Representative Steve Cohen’s ancestor Moses Cohen migrated from Spain to Holland, then started trafficking slaves to Latin America and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean in the early 1600s, he later migrated to what became Louisiana with other Sephardic slave traffickers like the Monsanto family. The first 8 synagogues in what became the US from NY (then New Amsterdam) to Louisiana were built on profits of the slave trade. Their British “empire” was a Rothschild incentivised bid to enrich it’s self by stealing from others. The same British elites who we are told were abolitionist, like the leaders of the British army lied and betrayed the blacks the promised freedom to if they fought for the British against the USA. Even their much praised Wilberforce who enriched himself at home exploiting poor English whites, in reality just didn’t want blacks in Britain, his law “outlawing” slavery in Britain insisted it remain legal in Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the Wilberforce family had many plantations. the same democrat party of slavery, whose Rothschild cousin senators and representatives who wrote the black codes and was the Secretary of the Confederacy (David Yulee Levy and Judah P Benjamin) were taking bribes from the governments, and the British government including the not the abolitionists Britain claims they were Queen Victoria and Prince Albert who funded and armed the confederacy as they wanted to add the southern US with it’s slave labor cotton and sugar plantations to it’s empire. When the war was lost Rothschild cousin Judah P Benjamin fled to Britain and was made a queen’s counsel. His cousin Senator David Yulee Levy wrote the precursor to Jim Crow, the black codes. Another member of the tribe, Simon Baruch cofounded the klan, and was a high ranking klan official. His son, Bernard Baruch became a financier on Wall St and he and others like him in NY, London, Paris and Berlin financed Trotsky and Lenin’s bolshevik revolution. As a democrat adviser he also demanded harsh punitive measures against Germany after WWI, despite the fact it wasn’t Germany who caused the war, but bolshevik terrorists who assassinate Franz Ferdinand in the hopes of starting a massive war they hoped would impose communism worldwide. As an adviser to FDR, he told the president not to allow his fellow Jews, refugees from nazi Germany who had arrived on the SS St Louis, to enter the US, and FDR sent them away. Bernard Baruch boasted about how proud he was to find his father’s klan regalia in a trunk years later. Funny how not one blmkkk member or leftists in New York demands the 3 or 4 memorials to klan founder Simon Baruch be renamed/torn down (SUNY’s Baruch college, a park near a public housing complex, Simon Baruch junior high school (J.H.S. 104 ) and possibly one more school.

  2. “the idea that making Americans of European descent more inclined toward white identitarianism is going to have long-term positive consequences is, well, nuts”

    I bet there’s method to their madness.

    They’re probably gambling that the risks of alienating whites will be outweighed by the votes their race-baiting gets from nonwhites.

    The problem is if nonwhites don’t go along with the racism. I won’t venture to make predictions, but it’s just barely possible that refugees from racial and ethnic conflicts won’t listen to demagogues who advocate…racial and ethnic conflicts.

    But who knows, maybe the racists will be able to pull it off, all the while stroking themselves over their own virtue.

    1. I think there’s mostly madness in that madness. Assuming that anti-white identitarianism will yield majority support requires that second- and third-generation Hispanic “immigrants” (quotes because since when has this country ever thought of or treated somebody whose grandparents lived here as still being an immigrant?) stop identifying as white, and also that the majority of “white” Americans stop accepting newer immigrants as white.

      I see a lot of anti-racists arguing that 100 or 150 years ago, Polish or Italian or Irish immigrants were not considered white. I don’t know if that is meant literally (and if so, whether it’s defensible as true) or just as a way of saying that they were discriminated against on quasi-racial grounds. Either way, it doesn’t seem like a strong basis for arguing that white identity is so fixed and pernicious.

      1. This replacement theory is from a msth error at the Census. Ifyou want tomeet soome 1920’s type racists, talk to Mexican. They do violent ethnic cleansing today. This is alla Commie scam to undermine the country.

        1. Hard to believe the stupidity and naivete of the lawyer.

  3. Those who insist that public schools should teach made-up nonsense as historical fact in service of radical ideologies that most Americans don’t agree with will rightly get political blowback.

    Public schools taught made-up nonsense about race and American history for 150 years with nary a word of complaint from the right.

    And lots of people on the right are insisting that they continue doing so.

    Consider, from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/magazine/memory-laws.html&quot;NYT Magazine, referring to various censorious state laws:

    But the most common feature among the laws, and the one most familiar to a student of repressive memory laws elsewhere in the world, is their attention to feelings. Four of five of them, in almost identical language, proscribe any curricular activities that would give rise to “discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex.”

    So if you have a southern student raised on Lost Cause BS, you may not teach the facts about the Confederacy and slavery, lest it cause “anguish.” OK, Bernstein.

    Douthat does concede a point:

    But the basic claim that structural racism exists has strong evidence behind it, and the idea that schools should teach about it in some way is probably a winning argument for progressives.

    But then he goes overboard:

    What’s really inflaming today’s fights, though, is that the structural-racist diagnosis isn’t being offered on its own. Instead it’s yoked to two sweeping theories about how to fight the problem it describes.

    Bullshit. What’s inflaming today’s fights is not some intellectual policy disputes. The guys running around with Confederate flags don’t know crap about Robin DeAngelo (whom I regard as a BS artist). What’s inflaming them is resistance to facing the plainer facts of American history.

    You don’t have to go all in on Kendi and DeAngelo to know that there is an awful lot of really unpleasant stuff there, and lots of people don’t want to admit it.

    Some of them will be along shortly.

    1. All good points.

    2. What I find in Texas is, not a generic ban on facts which hurt people’s feelings, but a ban on teaching “the concept that…an individual *should feel* discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex” [emphasis added]

      https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0

      So you can teach about the evil things various white people did in Europe, the Confederacy, etc. just so long as you don’t point to the white kid and say “…and that should make you feel guilty!”

      Can you find an example of a bill which forbids topics because they will *unintentionally* wound people’s feelings? Because when I read stories about people being unintentionally offended, these stories generally involve a white teacher reading a passage from Martin Luther King in which King quotes racists saying a racist word.

      1. These parts seem to ban teaching certain factual claims/conclusions, no?:

        “the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States;or(x)AA with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from,betrayals of, or failures to live up to,the authentic founding principles of the United States”

        1. You aren’t helping poor Bernard, who claims that the bill bans facts which hurt students’ feelings, when in fact it specifically contemplates the possibility, as in the section you quote, of students being taught that slavery existed, as much as that might cause hurt feelings.

          As for your point that the controversial Texas bill wants students taught that Abe Lincoln and Martin Luther King were right, yes, that does seem to be in the bill. What a shame.

          1. So it does forbid teaching certain factual claims, but that’s ok because they are wrong and bad claims.

            There’s a term for that kind of thinking in other context that’s thrown around here. What is that? On the tip of my tongue. I want to say it rhymes with rancel vulture…

            1. Should government-run schools teach racist or un-American doctrines? Should they teach that Lincoln and King were wrong?

              If you wish to defend that proposition, at least you’re debating the actual bill, not some imaginary version of the bill.

              1. What’s ‘un-American’ is and should be open to fair debate via any quality American education.

                1. But a lot of it is being taught as not open to debate.

                  1. There is no evidence that’s how it is being taught, and not for lack of the right trying!

              2. “Should they teach that Lincoln and King were wrong?”

                I guess they can’t teach that King was right on affirmative action or meritocracy, eh?

                1. And they can’t teach that Lincoln was right about “voluntary deportation” of emancipated slaves – at least not under the bill.

                  I meant they were right about slavery and racism violating American founding principles, and I think this is clear from the context, but just to be clear – they shouldn’t be teaching that King was right to advocate racial preferences and they shouldn’t be teaching that Lincoln was right to advocate sending freed slaves out of the country.

                  1. So teachers/administrators may not “require or make part of a course the concept that” Lincoln held you point to? Teachers must cover up the parts of history where our prominent leaders endorsed slavery, white supremacy, etc., as true to the authentic and noble founding of the USA etc., etc.,?

                    1. No, they can’t say Lincoln was *right* about shipping black people out of the country.

                      Again, it’s generally not supporters of these bills who think historical facts by themselves are racially harassing.

                    2. You are the Red Guard. You must be stopped, and cancelled. Then, your kind goes to prison, for treason, and collaborating with the Chinese Commie enemy.

                    3. “they can’t say Lincoln was *right* about shipping black people out of the country. ”

                      No, the law says that teachers/administrators may not “require or *make part of a course the concept*

                    4. “You are the Red Guard. ”

                      You are mentally ill moron.

                    5. ‘No, the law says that teachers/administrators may not “require or *make part of a course the concept*’

                      But you quoted a different part of the law which contemplated the govt schools teaching about slavery, which is a racist concept. They just can’t teach that slavery was good, or that it’s the basis of America’s founding.

                      The section you yourself quoted would be fairly meaningless if the law meant offensive concepts could not even be *mentioned.*

                    6. You are going to a male prison, Hon.

                2. He was certainly right about white leftists being the worst kind of ally.

                  1. He meant timid white leftists, in fact, that was very ‘CRT’ of him. Guess we’ll have to cancel culture that part of MLK’s thought to, amirite?

                    1. He’s honored for fighting against segregation, and for giving up his life for that cause. Maybe, through innocence-by-association, we can try to smuggle in some of his bad ideas, but that would suggest a lack of nuance.

                    2. No, no, we mustn’t have un-American bad ideas in the schools.

                    3. Thanks for whitesplainong what he meant. It’s a truly breathtaking demonstration of his point.

                    4. Thanks for whitesplainong what he meant. It’s a truly breathtaking demonstration of his point.

                      Letter from a Birmingham Jail is not unclear about what he meant, asshole.

                    5. Malcolm X, said it best:

                      “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”

                      All White liberals are the worst enemy of the Black man.

            2. QA,
              Yu have an interestingly oblique way of denying what seem to be vindictive examples of cancel culture by labeling any disagreement of one political group by another as cancel culture.
              That is just rather silly reductionism and not very convincing at all.

            3. From what I can tell, what you’re linking to is about the K-12 curriculum, which is government speech and generally subject to regulations. It’s not about what is taught at Universities.

      2. Yup. Unlike the false claim from the NYT, the actual law bans telling kids that they should feel guilty based on their race, not teaching anything that makes them feel guilty.

        Bernard11 appears to have fallen prey to a BlueAnon disinformation campaign.

        1. Actually, it seems to literally say that teachers/administrators may not “require or make part of a course the concept that…an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex”

          So it’s not clear that a teacher requiring a reading extolling the concept that an individual should feel discomfort, etc., on account of the individual’s race or sex isn’t forbidden by the law.

          1. The provision doesn’t say what Bernard (or his source) attributed to it.

            1. It says what I said it does which leads to a similar state of affairs.

              1. I hardly think so.

                1. I’ve already explained that it does, or at the least that it’s not clear that it doesn’t (and when you’re dealing with a law that’s all one needs to oppose it).

                  1. It’s good I gave a link to the text of the law, which should resolve any he-said-she-said disputes about the contents.

                    1. I quoted the provision of the law exactly.

                    2. That what is there for you to worry about?

                    3. Exactly that “it’s not clear that a teacher requiring a reading extolling the concept that an individual should feel discomfort, etc., on account of the individual’s race or sex isn’t forbidden by the law.” And when a law is not clear on that kind of thing it tends to work to chill speech it’s not clear about.

                    4. Govt-school teachers ought to be “chilled” from engaging in racial harassment, even against white students.

                      The people who find racial harassment on the teaching of historical facts (eg, the bad word in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail) don’t seem to me to be motivated by support for the Texas bill or its counterparts.

                    5. So you want to cancel culture teaching Taney’s opinion (among a bunch of other things) too? It’s funny how your strong desire to fight antifa-types have you in the same bed with them….

                    6. I really don’t see how I can make it any clearer, but I’ll try again. They can’t teach that Taney was *right,* but they can certainly teach that his opinion happened.

                    7. Actually, it seems to literally say that teachers/administrators may not “require or make part of a course the concept that…an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex”

                      So it’s not clear that a teacher requiring a reading of Taney’s opinion extolling the concept that an individual should feel discomfort, etc., on account of the individual’s race or sex isn’t forbidden by the law.

                    8. With your interpretation, how do you account for the provision you yourself quoted, banning the concept that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States.”

                      If we’re using the usual tools of legal interpretation, that would seem to imply that slavery *can* be taught – as a deviation from American principles.

                      Maybe it was a deviation or maybe it wasn’t, but it can be *mentioned.*

                    1. Arguing with a denier is a waste of time. They do not argue in good faith. They have an agenda that overcomes all facts, logic, and morality.

      3. Speaking of Texas—had the “1619 Project” been named the “1836 Project” it would have been a grand slam. Texas was founded by illegal immigrants running from broken marriages and debt that were fighting to perpetuate slavery so they could establish cotton plantations.

    3. “Public schools taught made-up nonsense about race and American history for 150 years with nary a word of complaint from the right.”

      So, in the 1840s, when Catholics objected to the triumphalist Whit-Protestant-liberal narrative in the schoolbooks in New York City, their complaint was coming from…the left?

      1. Whig-Protestant

      2. (This complaint, of course, didn’t end in the 1840s but extended over several decades, into the era you’re describing, and not just about New York schools.)

      3. And I guess it’s a good thing you limited yourself to public-school curricula, since the seven-year ban on the movie *Birth of a Nation* in Kansas was supported by such left-wing icons as the Grand Army of the Republic and Republican governor Arthur Capper.

        https://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/1991spring_butters.pdf

      4. Was that about race and American history?

        1. Teaching about the virtuous Anglo-Saxon Puritans and their glorious deeds?

          1. Puritans were considered a race?

            1. Anglo-Saxons were considered a race. They were big in the 19th century, especially when the conversation turned to so-called northern European Germanic Protestant peoples versus decadent Catholic Latin peoples.

              1. I could have sworn I asked you about Puritans.

                1. I didn’t call them a race.

                2. It was their racial origins they gloried in.

                  1. The Puritans gloried in their racial origins?

                    1. No, their 19th century apologists used them in their defense of Protestant Teutons versus decadent Latin Catholics.

                  2. they = many of the textbooks and advocates.

    4. Bernard – I’m 63. Was born and raised in the confederacy. Hell, for grade one and two my school was still segregated – black kids didn’t show up until 1963.

      In school I was taught…..history. No lost cause stuff at all. It was never mentioned. Was taught that we used to have slavery and we fought a war over it and slavery ended. Was taught about the 2/3 compromise and everything. In this case it’s my experience that you’re the one engaging in stereotype.

      And to whatever extent wrong things were taught in the past, how does teaching incorrect crap like 1619 or racist crap like CRT make anything better? I don’t give a shit about conservative or liberal. Wrong is wrong.

      1. bevis, it’s just a fact of history that lost cause stuff was taught (both in the South and the North actually) quite commonly (even if you don’t recall or didn’t have it in your schooling).

        1. Is that “fact” sourced from the same place that Nikole Hannah-Jones gets her history?

          I postdate bevis by a couple of decades, but also grew up in the South. Catholic elementary schools in North Carolina and Florida, then public schools in Florida. None of the teachers or curricula glorified the Confederacy or slavery. They were pretty clear on why those causes morally deserved to lose the Civil War. There were enough blatant racists around that nobody denied they existed, either, and those racists mostly made a strong enough argument against their thinking through their own behavior.

          1. Go to Google Scholar, google ‘Lost Cause’ or ‘Dunning School’ and ‘education.’ Go nuts dude.

            1. So you don’t have an actual source that you will stand behind. Figures.

          2. No kidding about the racism around. Imagine Tennessee in the 1960s.

            I was fortunate to have parents that just quietly taught us that everyone should be treated with dignity and mutual respect. No exceptions.

            Maybe schools back then were different in Mississippi or Alabama and Georgia. But where I was they were pretty straight with stuff.

            1. And the more I think about it, I’ll go a step further and say that I was taught history much better than modern kids. I saw my kids go through school and I see assertions that kids make today and it’s like they’re taught a cartoon version. Everything is black and white with no nuance and people back then were one dimensional stick figures.

              And dumping racial indoctrination into it will just make it worse.

          3. Nobody except you has any idea what they told you in your particular classrooms (well, I’m sure the other kids do, as well as the teachers, but since nobody knows who you are we can’t ask them). But it’s not exactly deniable that Lost Causism was the predominant historical school for decades. There are plenty of Americans today who will insist that slavery wasn’t the cause of the civil war, that it was about state’s rights, that Lincoln started the war, that slaves were well treated, that southerners were really fighting for freedom rather than committing treason in defense of slavery, that this is proved by the fact that there were plenty of blacks fighting for the confederacy, etc.

        2. “lost cause stuff ”
          would you care to explain what this “lost cause stuff ” is to those of us educated in public schools who have never heard a word about it?

          1. I’ve heard about it, but not until I was well out of school.

            The “lost cause” stuff is the idea that the Confederacy was fighting for some kind of noble but futile cause that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

            1. I’ve heard a lot about it, but really, it must have been relatively isolated since at least the 80s as you see in this thread, multiple people say they never saw it with no one bringing up the other side

          2. would you care to explain what this “lost cause stuff ” is to those of us educated in public schools who have never heard a word about it?

            Google is your friend.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

        3. I second Bevis’s statement.
          My source is my Username.

          I never had any teacher or textbook idolize the Confederacy. The only thing was a few “it was more complicated than just slavery”, focusing on the first crisis over tariffs that ended with Calhoun’s resignation from the Vice presidency.

          The only real papering over that was done was the Mexican abolition and how the threat of that affected the Texas revolution. That wasn’t really discussed until 7th-8th grade.

          1. ^^^so you agree that had it been called the “1836 Project” or the “1861 Project” it would be correct?? I don’t have a problem with the author having a hypothesis and it not being 100% convincing…I still think it is a positive contribution in light of Texas and the Confederacy. I also think slavery was much easier to rationalize prior to 1800 when all anyone knew for centuries was agrarian societies in which the vast majority of people were essentially serfs. Technological advancements started picking up steam around 1800 and the Civil War freaked people out on many levels because those technological advances made killing and maiming much easier…and then Europe was finally exposed to it in WW1. That’s why in 2007 when people were like, “check out Facebook” and then Obama used it to beat Hillary I understood technology doesn’t always end up producing positive results like Obama beating Hillary…sometimes it produces WW1 or Trump! 😉

            1. By ”1861 Project”, you mean that it would reveal the racist motivations behind the founding of the CSA?

              That would not be news to anyone, or be novel scholarship. It would also fail in the propaganda purpose of the 1619 Project. Why would anyone bother, and what would be the intended message in, naming it the 1861 Project?

      2. Correction – my “1963” above should have been 1965. I’ve never figured out how they managed to dodge Brown for a decade.

      3. Bevis,

        I’m a bit older than you are, and also attended public schools in the south. Some things I was taught:

        1. The war was not about about slavery at all, but tariffs.

        2. Lee actually owned no slaves, while Grant owned many.

        3. Reconstruction was a terrible and unjust imposition on the South, and its end was a glorious day.

        I mention these just because they stand out in my mind to this day.

        I went to college in the South. There was a fraternity – many will recognize it – that glorified Lee almost to the point of deification, and held an annual “Old South” ball, where the members dressed as Confederate soldiers. etc.

        The glory of the Confederacy was everywhere.

        1. Tariffs? Wow. That’s a hoot. This is the first I’ve ever heard that one.

          Different experiences for different folks I guess. You don’t say how much older than me you are, but even 10 years could make some difference in prevailing attitude. There was a pretty material change in attitudes between, say, 1955 and 1965. Even in the south, although it was still far from perfect.

          Or maybe you were in a part of the south that was just more hard core. Vicksburg famously fell to siege on July 4 1963 and declined to celebrate Independence Day until WW2.

          I don’t dispute what you experienced and I don’t dispute the tendency of politics to infuse systems (like curriculum) in mess them up. This tendency is why I hate politics. And also why I don’t want this overtly political form of racial politics brought into the schools from the left.

          And I’m in Texas now and through time we’ve had some real yahoos involved in picking textbooks and curriculum down here. From the right. That has always disgusted me as well and every time I’ve been able to do something to oppose it I have. FWIW.

          1. Tariffs? Wow. That’s a hoot. This is the first I’ve ever heard that one.

            It’s kind of hard to believe that, since one can perennially find that argument in the Reason/Volokh comments sections.

        2. Let’s not forget the ludicrous claim that the Confederate flag is about “heritage, not hate.”

        3. If one were to google “confederate secession speeches” you’d read what the various governors and other leaders orated about with regards to secession. Such a one would read easily 90% or more about the destruction of the “particular institution” and not so much about such things as tariffs and so-called “states’ rights”.

    5. You will note (a) that I have never defended, or even discussed, particular legislation. I’d be fine with a legislature specifically prohibiting school boards from assigning things like Kendi and Reynolds’ book, but that’s my only publicly expressed opinion on the matter; and (b) the fact that American history textbooks have been distorted in one direction in the past is hardly an argument to adopt equally pernicious lies and extremism from the other side.

      1. the fact that American history textbooks have been distorted in one direction in the past is hardly an argument to adopt equally pernicious lies and extremism from the other side.

        This is true, of course, but I would say three things:

        1. I’m not sure the perniciousness and extremism are equal.

        2. I’m tired of the moral preening of a lot of the right on these issues. Many of the same people raising hell about this stuff were all in on defenses of Confederate statues and the like.

        3. I actually doubt that many rightists are happy to have the ideas of structural racism, which Douthat purports to agree with, taught. It’s all the glory of the Founders, etc.

      2. Tell me, David.

        What do you think motivates the many Republicans in Congress who oppose removing the statue of Alexander Stephens from the Capitol?

        Is it really some subtle intellectual disagreement about the role of race in US history, or is it pandering to Trumpist idiots?

        You and Douthat really need to get out more. The notion that there are lots of conservatives who agree with the notion of structural racism, and its importance, but simply are reacting to DeAngelo and Kendi and the like (have they even read the books?) is just silly.

        How many of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists waving Confederat flags fall into that category?

    6. What’s inflaming them is resistance to facing the plainer facts of American history.

      What’s inflaming today’s fights is the notion that whites should be ashamed of their “whiteness,” that we should all be ashamed of our country, and that people who drop of school and don’t get the education they need for gainful employment do not deserve any blame for the consequent poverty they get mired in but are the victims of a racist culture.

  4. Dealing with racism, direct or structural, always comes with push back. I saw this in the 60’s as I grew up and I see it today. The complaints about CRT is the same as the complaints in the 60’s about minorities “wanting to come into our schools” and “wanting our jobs”. The goal of the opposition is to comb through to find one thing and than claim it pulls down the rest. Start by saying that no fear of European abolitionist was not the sole cause of the revolutionary war and so we never need to study racism.

    Question for Mr. Bernstein, maybe fear of rising abolitionist feelings in Europe were not the primary cause of the revolutionary war, but was it a facture? If so should it not be presented as such?

    1. “maybe fear of rising abolitionist feelings in Europe were not the primary cause of the revolutionary war, but was it a facture? If so should it not be presented as such?”
      If there’s evidence that such fear was a significant factor causing the Revolution, of course the evidence should be presented and discussed. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no evidence it was a significant factor motivating the revolutionaries — scholars from both left and right debunked the 1619 Project’s claim. Why confuse high school students by presenting unsubstantiated speculation? Maybe space aliens caused the Revolution; shall we teach that?

    2. “The complaints about CRT is the same as the complaints in the 60’s about minorities “wanting to come into our schools” and “wanting our jobs”.”

      If we’re doing analogies from the 1960s:

      ““During the cultural revolution, I witnessed students and teachers turn against each other. We changed school names to be politically correct. We were taught to denounce our heritage. The Red Guards destroyed anything that is not communist: oaths, statues, books, and anything else.”

      “We are also encouraged to report on each other just like the student equity ambassador program and the bias reporting system. This is indeed the American version of the Chinese cultural revolution” “Critical Race Theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our schools.”

      https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/10/loudoun-county-parent-communist-china-critical-race-theory/

      1. If we’re doing analogies from the 60’s then quite a bit of the time civil rights theories and activism were combated by Red Baiting.

        1. …and some of the civil-rights supporters were what you would call “red-baiters” because they were embarrassed at the bad light in which segregation put America in the contest with the communists for the hearts and minds of nonwhite peoples throughout the world.

          So red-baiting cuts both ways.

          1. “So red-baiting cuts both ways.”

            As an empirical matter not so much. Civil rights leaders knew this, of course, which is why so many were unwilling to dump the ‘reds’ that had stood by them.

            1. “unwilling to dump the ‘reds’ that had stood by them”

              Some made that brilliant tactical decision to keep their commie allies, but on the other hand, Thurgood Marshall actually informed on Communists to the FBI:

              https://www.history.com/news/thurgood-marshall-had-a-secret-relationship-with-the-fbi

              (of course the article suggested this was an icky thing needing a defense, but the fact is it happened)

              1. This is why I said “so many.”

                1. My point being, if you want to criticize CRT maybe don’t red bait because that’s kind of exactly the kind of thing CRT says has/goes on via them (well, at least the more vulgar proponents of it).

                  1. CRT is pretty explicitly an offshoot of Marxist scholarship. Are they suddenly afraid of their intellectual heritage?

                  2. Zero tolerance for the Red Guard in the USA.

                  3. “if you want to criticize CRT”

                    Technically, my knowledge of CRT comes from the freakout over these bills.

                    If the True-Scotsmanesque CRT source material doesn’t teach racist or un-American ideas, then they’re not banned. “Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung” (sp?)

                    1. A slight disclaimer – the “anti-sexism” provisions of these bills could well be interpreted to ban schools from teaching boys to be chivalrous to girls and women, simply because chivalry, I freely admit, is a form of sex discrimination.

                      This is too bad, and at the very least the bills should be watered down to permit this particular form of “discrimination.”

                  4. QA,
                    I did not read that comment as “red baiting” but rather comparing a technique used in the Chinese “cultural revolution” to expunge contray political thought or even thought and action that might led to contrary political views.
                    Hence I see you claim of “red-baiting” as merely a transparent rhetorical device rather than a substantive argument

                    1. Does it really count as “red baiting” when it’s someone who lived through things in China warning us that this is how communists started enforcing thought control there?

                2. Which is why I referred to the “brilliant tactical decision” to have commies on board – incidentally, that was a sarcastic remark.

    3. Given that much of my academic work is about the history of state-sponsored racism in the US, it should be pretty clear that my objection to CRT is not that we shouldn’t study racism. And I should add that my work has not a hint of CRT in it, so you don’t need CRT’s ideological gloss to research, write, and teach about racism. That’s become the far left’s mantra, that CRT just means teaching about the history of racism, and it’s utterly false.

      1. If you are teaching young Americans about racism from the conservative perspective, you are doing it wrong.

        The liberal-libertarian mainstream will show how it is done, despite conservative intolerance.

        Conservatives, as is customary, will get to whine about it and to try to defend the clingers as much as they like.

      2. My understanding of CRT is that it frames the view that legislation not directly aiming to be racist may have been racist effects by design or unintentionally. I am not familiar with all you work but I did pull up some of your papers. In “ROOTS OF THE ‘UNDERCLASS’: THE DECLINE OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE JURISPRUDENCE AND THE RISE OF RACIST LABOR LEGISLATION” you seem to suggest that unions pushed legislation that was racist in nature. It seems that you are applying the ideas of CRT even if you don’t call it that. That legislation designed to support union workers had the effect of hurting black workers. Can you explain this?

        1. In the early 20th century labor unions were often explicitly racist, excluding blacks and other minorities. The Bacon Davis Act was explicitly passed to prevent cheap “southern labor” from working on government projects.

    4. Bullshit, moderator. Total bullshit.

      Today, you’re the one advocating racism in school.

  5. Douthat rarely writes a coherent column. This latest one does not contradict that conclusion. His simple ‘two position’ is the construct of the mind of a simpleton.

    Exactly who is teaching that the revolution was driven by the need to prevent Great Britain from abolishing slavery in the colonies. And yes, overt racism does exist, as anyone who has attended a Donald Trump rally can attest to.

    The false argument of idealogues is to attribute an opinion to the majority that is a position of a small minority. So no, MTG is not the voice of the Republican party, and neither is AOC the voice of the Democratic party. And the people who seem to want to teach made up stuff are the people in charge of education in Texas and Florida.

    1. “Exactly who is teaching that the revolution was driven by the need to prevent Great Britain from abolishing slavery in the colonies.”

      You can start with the book discussed here and go on from there.
      https://https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation/

      1. I am not saying some historical illiterates do not believe that stuff and do not write about it, my comment is where exactly is that being taught and what mainstream educators/historians are supporting it.?

        My other point is that we can all find an outrageous position by some politico or community leader, but those people are neither seriously considered or respected and do not speak for any organization, party or group they may be affiliated with.

        1. The 1619 Project which makes that claim (“that the revolution was driven by the need to prevent Great Britain from abolishing slavery in the colonies.”) has been taught in more than 3,500 classrooms.
          https://www.educationnext.org/1619-project-enters-american-classrooms-adding-new-sizzle-slavery-significant-cost/

  6. “First, there is a novel theory of moral education”

    I know a few Catholics that will explain to you they have been teaching morality for thousands of years.

    1. Catholics teach about morality with their facilitation and concealment of sexual abuse of children (to protect their personal interests, their money, and their image).

      Catholics teach about morality with their freeloading.

      Catholics teach about morality when they suppress science and warp history to flatter superstition and silly dogma. Sacred ignorance has always been a substantial element of Catholicism.

      Catholics teach about morality when they engage in misogyny, gay-bashing, and other forms of bigotry. Dogmatic intolerance is another pillar of Catholicism.

      Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

      Or, at least, please try.

  7. “activist historians and journalists play fast and loose with facts to suit their historical narratives.”

    Yeah, I much prefer activist lawyers who make their bones writing activist revisionist historical narratives, they never gloss over facts like what the ‘primary’ cause of a complex event in history was or wasn’t.

    1. Queen, while my own historical work is not to everyone’s taste, I have as yet never been accused of, much less proven to have engaged in, making things up, distorting sources, or otherwise engaging in willful or negligent historical malpractice. Thus even if one disagrees with my interpretation of the facts (which are much more modest in general than your suggestion of “activism” implies), you can be pretty sure that the facts themselves are supported by the footnotes, and that there are actually footnotes… If we could get the likes of Ibram Kendi (or, outside CRT, Nancy MacLean), to start with that, then we can get to interpretive differences.

  8. “For example (in honor of Independence Day), no, the American Revolution was not fought primarily to prevent Great Britain from abolishing slavery in the colonies.”

    “Primarily” is doing a lot of work here. It was certainly the perception of Blacks that the Revolution was dominated by slaveholders, and thousands of them fought for the British because they understood that the British were much farther along the road to abolitionism (which was correct- Britain abolished slavery long before we did).

    A lot of conservatives, and liberals too, are like Penn State football fans who want to believe Joe Paterno was pure. They really want to believe that the founders they worship were good people and that we are intrinsically “better” because of their ideas, when in fact we were founded by a bunch of genocidal racists who didn’t like taxes and wrote a bunch of pretty words they didn’t really believe to sell the project to the masses.

    1. “because they understood that the British were much farther along the road to abolitionism (which was correct- Britain abolished slavery long before we did).” That’s not quite right. The United States was a confederation of states. Until the 13th Amendment, the national government had no authority to abolish slavery if it had wanted to, only to abolish legal slave importation in 1808, which it did. Of the governments that did have the authority to abolish slavery, the states, all the ones in the North did so before the British did, some way before. Ironically, if the colonies had stayed with England, the South would have been a very strong constituency for anti-abolitionism…

      1. But more important, those who advocate the theory that the revolution was fought to preserve slavery have been asked to provide primary sources in which people actually made that argument in favor of revolution at the time, and the pickings have been less than slim.

        1. Professor, one thing to remember is that the founders were quite dishonest. The idea that someone can write “all men are created equal”, and then go home and rape Sally Hemings, and people actually trust his primary source material as telling us what he really thought, is not a very intelligent approach to history.

          1. Diaries would do.

            1. Why do you think powerful people who know their diaries might be read in the future tell the truth about highly controversial issues in them.

              I have a different reading of the framers. They KNEW slavery was awful. They knew they were abusing human beings, and they couldn’t quit it because they enjoyed it and it gave them a life of leisure.

              And I have plenty of evidence of this in the 1787 Constitution, because it contains extensive protections for slavery and the slave trade without ever mentioning the word “slave” or “slavery”. Why not mention those words when it’s perfectly clear that was what they were talking about?

              The answer is it is consciousness of guilt. Any intelligent person would know that raping, whipping, and imprisoning fellow human beings was immoral. It’s not like the Enlightenment happened. They knew the score, and knew how history would look upon this. But they enjoyed it too much to give it up.

              1. “But they enjoyed it too much to give it up.”

                So better people did it for them.

              2. Very weak argument you’ve got there. If you wanted to find evidence of their racism or white supremacist attitudes you’d have plenty of primary evidence. Given that they weren’t shy about publicly upholding white supremacy, why suddenly coy about expressing desire to maintain slavery as motivation for revolution?

        2. I would say “more importantly, it’s not true”. Britain still allowed slavery in its colonies for a long time after they were banned from the home islands. The final British slaves were not freed, even on paper, until another century and more had passed.

          1. Britain banned slavery in most colonies in 1833.

            Considering what this country did to Blacks until 1865, and then, through Jim Crow, for 100 years more, support for the British was a no brainer for Blacks in the revolutionary era.

      2. That’s completely circular. We were only “a confederation of states” because the United States wrote its two constitutions that way, and it wrote them that way in part because making us a “confederation of states” would help preserve the Slave Power.

        The Revolutionaries could have literally set up any government they wanted to. They could have made Washington a King. (Indeed, anti-royalism is one truly great thing that the American framers believed in, and should be justly celebrated for.) The government they actually set up was designed to perpetuate slavery with numerous provisions that created veto points to increase the power of states with a lot of slaveholders and to prevent abolitionists from getting control and enacting policies that might speed the end of slavery.

        Meanwhile, in Britain, all Blacks and their friends had to do was persuade the monarch and the Parliament. And that persuasion effort was already going on in 1776 (Somerset’s case had already been decided and there was significant abolitionist sentiment building in Britain).

        The American revolution was not “about” one thing, obviously. But slavery was absolutely at the center of the project, and indeed, the Constitution of 1787 does not contain very many procedural rules designed to ensure one side of various policy debates would win (e.g., it contains no provision either mandating, or forbidding, a central bank), but it does contain them on slavery, and no Constitution could pass that did not contain them. This country’s founding was preconditioned on slavery.

        1. The revolutionaries could not have set up any government they wanted because the Continental Army was not strong enough to have imposed its will on any significant dissenting part of the country. The thirteen colonies had thirteen separate colonial legislature, separate cultural, religious, and ethnic demographies, and to some extent separate armies (militias). The logical conclusion of the war would have been 13 separate countries bound by a free trade agreement and some rules regarding comity, which is essentially what the Articles of Confederation were. Even when replaced by the Constitution, the only federal official any American was likely to see for the next 70 years was the mailman, and even that wasn’t consistent. There was no real common American identity in 1776, and no way to have a centralized government. Thirteen different governments,and all of them north of Delaware abolished slavery.

          1. That may be true, but at this point, you are arguing an excuse rather than that the 1619’s history was wrong. “They set up a government that was deliberately designed to protect slavery because the slaveholders were too politically powerful for them to create a different government” is entirely consistent with Nikole Hannah-Jones’ thesis, and damning to anyone who believes the framers were a bunch of liberty lovers.

            1. It’s hardly novel or controversial to argue that the Constitution could not have passed had it given the North the unilateral power to abolish slavery. There is controversy over the extent to which the framers anticipated the relatively swift end of slavery, but again that’s not what is novel. What’s novel, and just wrong, is that a significant, much less the primary, impetus for the revolution was to protect the institution of slavery. Precious little evidence has been presented for that thesis, and at this point it’s fair to conclude that the evidence doesn’t exist. And noting that many southern slave holders expected slavery to continue indefinitely after the revolution simply isn’t evidence the as t this motivated the revolution. Indeed, the revolution put slavery in jeopardy not only for identity logical reasons, but because an obvious British tactic would be to offer freedom to slaves who fought for the British, a tactic that was pursued.

    2. ” A lot of conservatives, and liberals too, are like Penn State football fans who want to believe Joe Paterno was pure. ”

      I knew Joe Paterno. (He tried to get me fired. Fortunately for me, I didn’t live or work in the large section of the state in which he was powerful enough to get someone in my position fired, and in which he had done so.)

      A couple of other high-profile coaches predicted Paterno’s disgrace (off by a few details — they figured it would be players rather than a coach that precipitated his unmasking) 35 years before he was fired. A few of those coaches are still around (mostly retired, I believe). But they had Paterno pegged — with remarkable foresight, involving many accurate details about the eventual scandal — in the mid-70s.

      Much of the economic, educational, legal, practical, prosecutorial, employment, and police power in a substantial section of a large state was concentrated on one man’s front porch. And that man turned out to be a low-quality, phony man.

      1. Note though that we’ve now seen allegations against Bo Schembechler as well, with a similar reaction from some in the Michigan football booster community.

        These folks pumped up the “leaders of men” rhetoric, and went around giving speeches to civic groups, all premised on the notion that what they talked about actually reflected what they believed about the world rather than the cynical BS that is used to drive donations to a college football program.

        It wouldn’t be surprised if similar stuff (perhaps a bit less extreme than Sandusky, perhaps not) happened within other big-time football and basketball programs, because they are all centered around this form of coach worship, just like our history is centered around framer worship and as a result a LOT of people were resistant to accepting that Jefferson was banging Sally Hemings (some still are).

        1. I was not clear about this point: The coaches who predicted Paterno’s disgrace in some detail, more than three decades before Paterno was fired, were not associated with Penn State. Some of them might have had a few beers before discussing Paterno in that manner. The most important point, in my judgment, is how accurate their expectations were. They predicted Paterno would take the university president, a few vice presidents, and the athletic director down with him; that police and prosecutors would be involved; that plenty of serious criminal conduct — with coverup — would be involved; that most Penn State fans and some legislators would stick with the school; and that Paterno would eventually skate with little or no personal accountability. But they figured it would be criminal conduct by players — not by a coach — that Paterno would appease in an effort to protect the Penn State football program at the expense of innocent victims.

          1. I get that.

            But Paterno was not unique. Any enterprise that pumps up people as these great “leaders” in order to garner support for a cause- whether its a revolution or a college football athletic scholarship fund- creates a situation where people believe the BS.

        2. Or maybe not-so big time wrestling coaches?

          Jim Jordan is still in Congress, last I looked.

    3. “Primarily” is doing a lot of work here. It was certainly the perception of Blacks that the Revolution was dominated by slaveholders, and thousands of them fought for the British because they understood that the British were much farther along the road to abolitionism (which was correct- Britain abolished slavery long before we did).

      No; they fought for the British because the British promised them freedom if they did. Not to abolish slavery — to free the slaves who fought for them.

  9. The idea that the teaching of history has only recently become political seems ridiculous. What you see as apolitical many others see as extremely so.

    Education itself has always been political and there is nothing new here including one side claiming it’s got a monopoly on truth.
    ========
    David Bernstein attacking the group which includes historians on the 1619 project for bad history seems to me making a similar error.
    There is no One True History of America. The point seems to be rather the opposite – not that slavery is the OTHA, but that what we were taught as the OTHA has a particular and political POV baked in.
    So, too, with education. And race. And *certainly* race and education together.

    1. However many histories of the United States you want to say there are, the 1619 project is none of them.

      They didn’t even get the facts right. And the interpretation that followed was consistent with those facts.

      When it’s so bad the NYT is forced to retract….

      1. The difference between the New York Times and the Texas schoolbook commission is that the Times recognizes and admits errors.

        Well, that and the general lack of obsolete, half-educated, superstitious hayseeds at the Times.

        1. Oh, sorry I got the semantics wrong. Not a retraction but a clarification.

          They clarified that the central premise of the whole project – that the revolution was fought to protect slavery – was not accurate. Just a minor adjustment.

          1. Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of online debate.

            By Jake Silverstein
            March 11, 2020
            Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of online debate. The passage in question states that one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery. This assertion has elicited criticism from some historians and support from others.

            We stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery. Versions of this interpretation can be found in much of the scholarship into the origins and character of the Revolution that has marked the past 40 years or so of early American historiography — in part because historians of the past few decades have increasingly scrutinized the role of slavery and the agency of enslaved people in driving events of the Revolutionary period.

            Seems to me they’re still saying slavery was an important part of the motives, just not the direct cause.

            But the main thrust of the project is to point out how different our founding myth is when viewed from another PoV of people who were there and involved but not really thought about.
            Again, there is no evidence people are being taught this as the only possible truth, despite what the right keeps insisting. Clarify the scholarship all you want, but as a project – as a previously neglected perspective – it seems really important not to neglect.

            The USSR kept to one founding myth re: WW-2 and suppressed all evidence to the contrary. When the truth outed of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, it wrecked a lot of the Russian military leadership.

            We should not be so timid and thus so brittle; understanding our history’s dark side makes us more robust in the end.

            1. It’s bullshit. You left out the part where they changed it to “one of the motivations”. Half of the colonies at the time of independence were opposed to slavery. They were ahead of GB by decades on slavery. But yeah ok they were afraid that GB would make them stop something they weren’t doing.

              You’re ignoring all of the prominent historians, almost all of the left, have criticized it. It’s not scholarship. It’s a conclusion in search of historical justification.

              There is plenty to criticize America for that is legit. No need to make stuff up, but for whatever reason the race grifters are compelled to do so.

    2. “The idea that the teaching of history has only recently become political seems ridiculous.”

      I agree, and I’d welcome a bill banning the teaching of such a pernicious idea.

      That wasn’t difficult, was it?

      1. 1. Not the thesis of the OP.
        2. No evidence that’s what’s happening with respect to the black perspective in classrooms
        3. That is happening with respect to the white perspective in classrooms
        4. The laws being offered do a lot more than what you’re pretending they do.

        1. The people that are complaining are pissed that their white elementary aged kids are coming home upset because their teacher told them that they should be ashamed of themselves because they’re white and therefore responsible for slavery.

          Or that their black elementary aged kids came home complaining that their teacher told them that they would never have a chance to accomplish anything because they would spend their whole lives being oppressed.

          It’s child abuse. I agree with you that the ham fisted laws passed by chuckleheads in legislatures aren’t great, but what’s your solution? How do you propose to stop it?

          1. I think you have your facts wrong. Students are not coming home being told to be ashamed of themselves; that’s a scenario ginned up by the right. There is no evidence such cartoonish things are actually happening.

            1. So all the news stories with video I’ve been seeing are just, well what are they? I’m not a right winger and usually roll my eyes at their ridiculous bs.

              Are the people in them crisis actors like the Sandy Hook parents?

              Teaching Kendi and DiAngelo to 3rd graders is cool? White first graders are actually responsible for slavery and owe the world an apology?

  10. Artie, half the country are not cheaters, not Red Guard, not diverse. It includes the 65 million owners of 300 million guns. When they decide, it is time, all cheaters get swept away.

  11. The media wants us to buy some hustle called the “big lie” (TM) but tells us, without any iota of evidence (and much to the actual contrary), that we supposedly live in a society built upon systemic racism. This society is so racist that in order to find examples of it, “hate crimes” have to be completely manufactured and compose off outright lies.

    Let me get right on believing that load of BS….

  12. Hard to believe the stupidity and naivete of the lawyer.

  13. Destruction of gifted courses? It’s already woefully underfunded. Destruction of same is suicidal. The super advanced are those that push society forward.

  14. As a white man I refuse to apologize for, or feel shame, about my racial identity. Just as I refuse to embrace the concept of “Original Sin”, which the above would be tantamount to.

    Additionally, not gonna apologize for ending the above with a preposition. Suck it, grammar Nazis!

Please to post comments