Since American history is now front and center in our national, um, discourse, I thought I should share a tidbit of history about history. There's no special reason for this except that (a) it's true and (b) it's history that I'll bet a lot of progressives no longer remember if they ever knew it at all.
Back in 2014 the folks who make up curriculum guidelines for the AP history course decided to update things. This prompted dismay from conservatives and got a fair amount of press coverage at the time. Nothing like what's going on today, however, so you might have missed it. Here's a description from David Casalaspi, a mainstreamish liberal who's an education policy analyst for the National Governors Association:
The maligned 2014 framework represented a first attempt by the College Board to produce a coherent narrative of American history which would encourage teachers to stop teaching history as a collection of trivia facts and instead teach the subject more thematically. In doing so, though, it pressured teachers to adopt racial and gender conflict as the dominant paradigm of historical development.
In this way, the 2014 framework listed “Identity” — with an emphasis on racial and gender grievances — as the first of seven “organizing themes” for the teaching of American history. Additionally, the framework was littered with references to “white Americans,” “white settlers,” “white pioneers,” and their racial biases. The concept of Manifest Destiny, for instance, was described as “built on the belief in white racial superiority.” And one of the only things students had to know about World War II was that the dropping of the atomic bomb and the internment of Japanese citizens led to the questioning of American values.
....I am a liberal, but I often found myself agreeing with conservatives on this issue because I am wary of any U.S. history curriculum that both infringes upon the free speech of teachers and proffers a narrative of history which encourages identity-building through the balkanization of student populations along racial and gender lines. The long-standing purpose of social studies is to help students understand each other as citizens, not as members of competing tribes of with irreconcilable cultures.
The curriculum was changed in response to complaints, and everyone seemed to be relatively happy with the final 2015 product.
The only reason I'm bringing this up is to make it clear that the current right-wing jihad over "critical race theory" is itself rooted in history. The question of how much to emphasize the dark side of US history is a topic that's been active for decades, with plenty of participation from both liberals and conservatives. Generally speaking, as you might expect, liberals have consistently pushed for a more honest reckoning with our past, which has just as consistently been met with conservative alarm at anything that intrudes on the traditional view of America as the greatest country in the world.
For various reasons, Fox News recently decided to take this long simmering controversy and turn it into the outrage of the moment. But don't let that fool you. It's been around for a while, and both liberals and conservatives have contributed to periodic fights that push things farther than many people are comfortable with. Generally speaking, however, liberals nearly always manage to eke out modest victories that push the envelope a bit. The result has been a slow but steady reform of US history pedagogy that, with each passing year, is a little bit more honest about our past.
Nothing about this has changed much in the past year aside from the temperature of the fight. Liberals really do want more emphasis on how racism and genocide have fashioned the history of the US. Conservatives really do push back against this. Now, as always, the question isn't whether the liberal view should prevail—it always has—it's how far it should prevail at any given moment. How much should Americans, just like citizens of every other country, learn about the seamier side of their culture and history? This is not an easy question to answer.
Do a post about how they teach history in Japan. Very tragic and still to this day makes the Korea-Japan relationship sour.
Enlighten us
It's because much of what is taught is related to pre-20th century history, and they tend to skip the granular details of WW-II, particularly as it relates to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And like US, Japan has their own notion of Manifest Destiny, built upon the supremacy of its race, led by its Emperor as the descendant of (a) God, who like the Pope, is regarded as infallible.
Have you ever read Dower's books on Japan, including War Without Mercy and Embracing Defeat?
As you pointed out, that sounds like almost every other country.
Well, at least the more belligerent ones. Is one of the reasons why I find nationalism dangerous.
The liberal view hasn't always prevailed. There was a normalization and dishonest deracialization of the Confederacy for long time that didn't exist nationwide after the war and is thankfully starting to disappear.
That was really only true in Southern states, not in the North where the legacy of the Union victory endured. Forty odd years ago my seventh grade American history text in Michigan left zero doubt that slavery was the necessary condition for the Civil War, and also dug into Reconstruction in ways not really flattering to the defeated South.
My Illinois education about 30 years ago was fine on the causes of the Civil War but was pretty bad and Dunning-influenced on Reconstruction.
I don't think ours dwelt on Reconstruction. It hit the highlights (Freedman's Bureau, Johnson impeachment, KKK, Corrupt election of 1876) then skipped to the Indian wears and the end of Western settlement.
To jump in, but hopefully add, I remember my middle school education of the Civil War to be along the lines of slavery driving the cause to light the fuse.
But I also remember how the teacher that presented it, heavily emphasized the strategy of the Union to end the war. Maps, troop movements, battles, blockades. But because of sensitivities or maybe discretion, I never put two and two together until after high school the devastation wrought and the slaughter done. Now that I do have a slight ideation of the misery that war and its aftermath brought, and then having lived there for a time, I know it still stings the "South" and the resentment is baked in.
Maybe that's why this reticence to not look into the dark corners of the history exists. It's traumatic. Because the children are raised to feel that the South is great and was slighted but then to read and hear it was evil and corrupt from every corner but your own, places those kids in a mental bind. They become parents and scream at PTA's, and start the whole cycle again.
The war was won. But some hearts and minds weren't.
I'm a lot older than most posters here. 71 years old. That puts my middle school education in the early 60's and high school education in the mid 60's.
I am from the SF Bay Area, so this is a more liberal area in general. My memories of US history are quite clear. The Civil Was was fought first and foremost to end slavery in this country. There was no doubt left in our minds.
US history in 11th grade further described how that yes, the slaves had been freed, but that they were never given equal rights equal to those of white people.
Keep in mind that the Civil Rights legislation had just passed so this was current events for me.
There was at NO point any effort to romanticize life in the South. Black people were worth 3/5 of a person and owned by white people. We all knew that and our education backed that up.
Not true. The Dunning school was predominately in the North. The bitter truth is that without Nothern support, the South could never have implemented Jim Crow. Many Notherners were more than willing to join with the South in its oppression.
Found the 1901 Atlantic Magazine article below by William Dunning. It's as bad as expected. Dunning wrote from the point of view of northern Democrats, and it's interesting to see his take on the unraveling of Reconstruction in the south. Some of it is mildly accurate, but also whitewashed. He describes how southern whites tried to figure out how best to disenfranchise blacks, and the “Mississippi plan” of intimidation was found, and it spread. Dunning fails to mention the hundreds of murders of southern blacks in those years where Reconstruction came to fail. He doesn't mention the violence of the Redshirt terror groups. And he expresses overt racism matter of factly in the article. Really, this seems to animate his whole thesis ... blacks shouldn't vote.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/10/the-undoing-of-reconstruction/429219/
If your point is that there were racists and racist policies in the North then you'll get no argument from me. That does not mean that history texts used in schools misrepresented the fact that slavery chiefly caused the Civil War. Those are two rather distinct propositions. The South played up the old Moonlight and Magnolias and Gone With the Wind mythology of the era. The North tended not to-- but that did not prevent racism from having its day.
just like citizens of every other country,
Just about every country whitewashes* its own history, to greater or lesser degree.
*word chosen deliberately.
This doesn't seem all that hard to me. There's plenty of time in a history course that doesn't build itself on a set of memorable dates and bullet points to tell an honest story of both the relations between settlers and native Americans as well as the origins of the slave trade and it's history.
And if there isn't enough time, make three American history courses during the last 6 years of junior high and high school mandatory.
We are as a people very ignorant of our own history, and it affects our ability to evaluate our political candidates.
That's deluded egg-headism
The average Jane and Joe give zero fucks about using history to evaluate political candidates. They vote according to their political tribe, a vague mix of identification feelings and some preferences.
I'd argue that this is exactly the thing Eisbaer is worried about.
Taught to the Janettes and Joeys in their middle schools, breakfast tables, and Tic Toc feeds. Some egg headedness is needed or the fucks they'll eventually give will be assigned to them, not chosen.
Well then you have defined the problem. But just because it is does mean it should remain!
The cure IS a more honest covering of events beyond dead white guys. My education in the late 1970s and early 1980s was better than most IMO but I went to private catholic school to the immigrant experience was emphasized as well as the early history of Catholics in America as that happened in my region. I did take AP US History and scored a 5 out of 5 on the exam so I gained a college level credits for US history at VA Tech.
However despite a more balanced handling of the Civil War, surprising for schools in Virginia, there was NOT a proper accounting of the ravages waged by missionaries and Columbus was seen as heroic.
I enjoyed history so much I majored in it in college but my dislike of Civil War history due to over emphasis of the Confederate point of view in so many courses caused me to focus on other areas of history. I discovered the notions of Marxist history and Socialist history.
Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States was a the outrage du jour conservatives on campus so I eagerly read it. Interesting but overwrought. OTOH I did enjoy and appreciate history taught with a socialist point of view that is history that moves beyond focusing on dead white guys and covers what was going on among ordinary people of a given era.
The outraged conservatives like the Loudon County parents need to go jump in the Potomac. Historically much of their county supported the United States as Quakers had moved south from Pennsylvania to buy up the land exhausted from plantation farming and used more balanced farming methods.
Nobody is advocating for liquidation of the Kulaks or the formation of Soviets. We're just trying to get stories more representative of the kids i the classrooms to be covered in history classes.
There is no such thing as "socialist" or "marxist" history. Please educate yourself.
Okay troll, obviously you did not study Historiography. I have books nearby on my bookshelves that prove you wrong including Howard Zinn as flawed as his tome may be.
lol, Howard Zinn is a nobody making up history as he goes along.
Thanks for your usual display. You almost never disappoint.
KD: "For various reasons, Fox News recently decided to take this long simmering controversy and turn it into the outrage of the moment."
If it wasn't critical race theory it would be something else.
KD: "The result has been a slow but steady reform of US history pedagogy that, with each passing year, is a little bit more honest about our past."
I've taught US History to high school students in a rural area with lots of radical right wing Christians. Trust me, the teachers' right to free speech¹ allows them to run propaganda and indoctrination mills. And there is nothing pushing them to change.
¹ Along with the administration's desire to have things the way there are and always have been.
OMG you are a saint, it's really hard work being a teacher, harder still in an area with wackos.
I guess, after WWII, German schools should have eased gradually into teaching children about the evils of the Nazi regime. Start with "Hitler wasn't quite the hero he was made out to be" and work your way gradually over decades or centuries to the truth. Don't want to made people uncomfortable.
or Hitler hated rural people.........don't want to remind that of them either.
What are you talking about?!?
Nazism had strong support from rural Protestant Germans.
I'm sure Hitler had great contempt for many of his followers, but what does that have to do with anything?
The Nazi ideology glorified "the land" and viewed sophisticated urban dwellers with suspicion.
Your wrong. The bulk of Nazi support came from the white collars in what we would call now the "suburbs". They were big in college towns. The white collar proletariat. Got 78% of teachers. Most socialists valued the land including the Bolsheviks unlike conservatives which wanted the land destroyed.
Your post reaps of ignorance and stupidity. Much of Nazi philosophy structural had a bunch of Fabian society in it. A bunch. Its why old man Wells was freaking out so much.
I think you should take your gibble-gabble elsewhere.
"Much of Nazi philosophy structural had a bunch of Fabian society in it."
English, please.
How does one say "Oberlin Banh Mi" in German?
I know some people (in-laws et al.) who grew up in Germany after the war. It was not until they arrived in America in the late 1950s that they learned about the Holocaust. German schools, and German society in general, did not want to learn about German evils under Hitler. It's a little too easy, though, to put all the blame on institutions. There was a certain willful blindness of people who didn't want to believe bad things about mom and dad and their neighbors.
There are lots of Americans with that same willful blindness, even though generations have passed since slavery ended. A few years ago I toured a plantation and got the "slavery wasn't all that bad" version of history -- the slaves were treated "well," were housed and fed, even got to learn the ABCs. That's a comfortable story for some people in the South, what a lot of people would like to believe. Damn our schools if they're going to teach slavery was "evil." We would rather remain blind.
That willful blindness is still alive and fueling a lot of the pushback against a fuller teaching of our history.
Lately, though, there's much debate about things like CRT and the 1619 Project and what they mean. Chris Hayes did a segment about it on his show last week, making the argument that "race, racial hierarchy, racial oppression [was] the central ordering conflict of American society, politics, and history." That's an argument that even liberals like David Casalaspi may not agree with.
We have different groups with different views. Some want to deny the evils of our history. Some will admit the evils but not agree they are the most central facts of our history. Some argue (like Chris Hayes) that racial oppression is the most central fact of our society and history.
I'm not sure that Hayes and others like him win that argument.
The conservatives are fighting this mightily because this is their last stand, aka battle of the bulge. The stories and cultures of the rest of us are finally gaining ground and it scares them. Too bad, I had to put up with taunting Confederate idols all over my hometown when my personal history was one ancestor in the Brooklyn regiment and other sides of the family not getting to the US until long after the Civil War.
...I had to put up with taunting Confederate idols all over my hometown ... and other sides of the family not getting to the US until long after the Civil War"
What is your point? None of my ancestors were in this country at the time of the Civil War either, nor, most certainly, in colonial days. But as the descendant of immigrants, I don't expect there to be statues and idols reflecting my lineage here. And if I were to emigrate to another country, I would not expect them to erect statuary of American historical/cultural figures.
I can understand finding the statues of Confederates offensive--as do I (though I don't think these symbolic issues deserve the attention they get when there are so many tangible problems worsening by the day and being ignored). But what is your point about your ancestors not having been here then?
Besides that, the South was very much a globalist group of planters. They had a long "tory" linage. While the North was nationalistic and wanted total independence from the global financial system. Interesting, the Dixiecrats by the 1900's agreed, creating the council of foreign relations and other american think tanks to push dollar imperialism.
My point is the erasure of the honor of the Union soldier. Many, many Virginians were not rebels and enlisted in the Union Army to preserve the Union. The other point is the crowding out of any other story than the neo-Confederate story. The Fox News crowd wants to go back to those times but nope we're not going back.
David Casalaspi is not exactly a liberal. He's a moderate or a conservative leaner. He works with the AEI among others.
Hayes is largely correct though. We're still arguing and debating about race. We aren't arguing and debating on British taxes. We fought two wars against Britian, but now they're our best buds. If you examine many of our most famous laws, racism is a huge part. Posse Comitatus came about because the South didn't like the way the US Army had enforced the Law prior 1876. For 100 years before that the Army was used frequently in domestic law enforcement. It only became a problem wothy of prohibition once the Army was used against the racial heirarchy. Won't learn that in any school textbooks for some reason.
Hayes is wrong. Like the German, Polish(nonjewish) or Irish immigrants were "loved". Guys a idiot.
No you are wrong Spadesofgrey, you must be one of our usual troll renamed.
Shootie's back!
Hayes needs to check his identitarian gobbledygook if he wants to be on the dais for Nina Turner's triumphant Ohio Congressional Election win.
I think Chris "Russia Today" Hayes means Oppression of the Worker by the 1% Planters to Arrificially Suppress Their Wages by Having Slaves Available to Do the Work of the Common Man ruled the day. There is no need to bring racial background into it. & #idpol is right out!
*artificially
They did. The serious grappling didn't start in Germany until the mid 1960s.
You're not comparing Nazi's to the American South, are you? If so you've lost all credibility.
My wife and I both have a lot of Scots ancestry and for quite a while we subscribed to Highlander magazine. You would not want to meet our ancestors. Hell, WE would not want to meet our ancestors!
No doubt about it. I live in an area with a large Native American population and they spend a good deal of effort trying to maintain their ancestral traditions. I tell them "the traditions of my clan include rape, pillage, arson, massacre, and sheep-rustling; I do not follow the traditions of my clan". Even the most tradition minded individuals tend to agree that, in my case, that's a very good thing.
JIM WEBB WOULD HAVE WON. (IN 2016.)
I remember similar controversies about the teaching of American history in the 90s.
Yes, an academic working group drew up a proposed US history curriculum for public schools and because it was pretty thin on jingoistic gaslighting and focused on things like slavery, sufferage, labor history, social justice and liberation movements, it set off a firestorm of controversy. One of the biggest critics was Lynne Cheney who was head of the NEH at the time. The head of the panel, UCLA historian Gary Nash, wrote a book about his experiences dealing with all the blowback.
Conservatives love trying to build myths of whats "white". After the 1919 "red summer" when racial violence in the aftermath of WWI, "conservatives" tried to blame in on the Bolshevik revolution and.............the IWW aka wobblies. lol how bad they tried. Had Congressional "hearings" on it. Problem was, the IWW was racist themselves. Most members refused to organize black labor and when black labor organized, it was only due to their own efforts. So they made up quotes, took quotes out of context and did everything they could to tie the attempts of black labor organization to IWW. The REAL problem was IWW's organization of white workers down south and its anti-communist alter ego, Socialist Party USA, where many former populist party members were organizing down south and using racism as a recruiting tool. Yes friends, leftists were more racists than rightists at this time which was very common.
Boy how would the culture wars change today if history "snapped back like a rubberband"? My guess conservatives will uh, be concerned about racism.
No, the IWW was explicitly anti-racist.
They saw all colors of workers as opportunity for organization. (This has been a standard part of Communist ideology for 100 years.)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2716544
Shades of Gray was getting his political movements confused. Populism was never about Progressives, Populism in the US was always white supremacy and the 19th century Union movements were whites only for the most part though IWW at least pretended to be multi-racial.
On paper the IWW was not racist there were a few African American here and there but mostly it was reflective of the late 19th/early 20th century, it wasn't out front in support of worker's rights for black nor was it out in front in support of white supremacy.
You both are absolutely incorrect. IWW was absolutely "Jim Crow". While it didn't maintain a racial "bigotry", it absolutely had most of its members believing in Jim Crow and cared little about black "workers". Its why Wilson tried to blame them for "Red Summer" despite many IWW white workers being the aggressors, especially up North.
Populism and left wing politics are glove to hand. It came from the same source. Socialism itself was a European term. One used in the 1700's. Calling it "racism" is just your ignorance showing of history. The Populist party of the 1890's is something you need to read Anne. Your ignorant and a fool. Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK were all sellers of its line.
Nope Populism is cult of personality, Huey Long, George Wallce. Socialism is Eugene Debs. Totally NOT THE SAME.
lolz, George "The Shearer" Wallace was a faux populist who was just another "moderate" Jim Crow supporter in 1960.
Debs wasn't a populist? I mean you moron, how stupid do you think I am. Debs, the white workers champion. Debs, who beat up non-white immigrants on the docs. Debs, who saw racism as a tool to recruit workers into socialism(and indeed later regretted the "extent" he went). You simply are living a fantasy. Much like the whole "cultural marxism" scam conservatives have pushed since the late 20th century, nobody actually read socialist history which is tied to racism. IWW definitely had non-racists in their group. So did the populist party. But they were not the majority.
The populist party of the 1890's was American attempt at duplicating it in America without the "socialist" label. Bryan ran on that in the 1896 campaign against the "jewish bankers" destroying lives with debt deflation.
The problem with liberals like you is, you can't see beyond "Marxism". This is coming from somebody that is heavily influenced by 2nd wave Marxism that produced the Unabomber and added a ecological extension of Marx's work. British Socialism and French Communism have a long long history back to the 1700's. You keep on trying to tell a "historical story" but don't get the history. Marx hated your type of thinker exactly because you create history as you want it, rather as it was.
This fight goes on in every country, especially on recent history. My home country has the same debates about Swiss politic and policy during WWII (part admirable, part deplorable, part worse than deplorable, especially in the context of the Holocaust).
I guess all of US history is recent (unlike Scotch or French or Swiss history) which may make the fights harder than elsewhere. I keep being amazed at the fact that I was already alive when America's black people finally got the right to vote in the whole country. This stuff happened in my country generations before me (to be honest: It was Napoleon who forced the Swiss go give Jews equal rights).
Not that I'm familiar with many details of Swiss history. But didn't women essentially have no voting rights at all in Switzerland until the 70's?
It's worse than that - the last Swiss Canton to allow women to vote in local elections did so in 1991!!!! But to be fair the right to vote in federal elections came in 1971.
One difficulty with teaching history chronologically is that every year there is another year of history and no more time to teach it. That makes thematic organization worthwhile, because the class isn't struggling to get to the end of a time line -- which is, in fact, always yesterday (no matter when you consider the question). In truth, any such history class following a strict chronological format can never realistically get to the present. It's simply too much to cover. And every year it's a little worse.
Race relations, in some form, have to be a part of the instruction. When Republicans whine about lefties claiming the country "was founded in racism," all one has to do is look at our founding document, which is the Constitution, not the lofty rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, and it's quaint "3/5" of a human being to see how dishonest Republicans are being.
We usually ran out of time around the 50s, so we never got much on 60s era civil rights or Vietnam or Nixon. I think the school administration probably preferred it that way.
BINGO - it as always the way in my history classes some better some worse. In HS we did cover Vietnam but alas it being a conservative Catholic HS, it was more about domino theory and stopping the commies than the ethics of it all.
We never got past the industrial revolution.
My 1980ish middle school history closed up with Watergate. It was a two year course; 7th grade ended with the Civil War and 8th grade with Watergate
Every year there may be another year of history, but that is adding an ever decreasing perception the whole. Taking 1619 as a semi-arbitrary starting point for “US History” the year 2021 will add one year to the 421 which would have been covered in 2020. So less than one quarter of a percent.
Sheesh. Percentage to the whole…
"The concept of Manifest Destiny, for instance, was described as 'built on the belief in white racial superiority.'"
Well, that's true, and it's kind of hard to teach it without addressing it. To the extent that the concept wasn't always explicitly racial at the time is because the racial bias that American meant "white American" was so ingrained that people took it for granted.
To be honest, that's part of the tension around history in this country. White Americans think of white as "normal", and any time you identify that or challenge it, they think you're "injecting race". No, race was always there, it just wasn't always talked about. (And sometimes it was, but they don't like to acknowledge that.)
The problem with this is, "racial superiority" is overblown with Manifest Destiny. The real truth is the Columbian Exchange obliterated meso-american culture through disease to such a extent, Manifest Destiny needed little racial component. It was simply going to happen.
Your mumbling without really knowing history. You invent fantasies that don't exist. The "Injuns" simply wouldn't stop fighting. The trail of tears was built on ruthless Indian attacks against British legacy settlers. The party was over. Long long over. The Spanish did a load of damage with smallpox and swine flu. By the 20th century Indians began to figure it out and built casino's to take the white man's money. They finally got it.
ShadesofGray I think your white sheets are showing as is your lack of knowledge regarding thriving native nations in the late 18th and early 19th centures that were obliterated by superior weapons forced relocations and kidnapping of children to boarding schools where they were taught to be "white".
97 million meso-americans died between 1500-1800 with disease.........how many Europeans did the Indians kill. Most of your whining is over a war they refused to stop fighting. They were simply killed by sickness and could not longer fight.
Annie, you are just not a smart person. You live a history that didn't exist.
Oh yeah, who created the "20th century" KKK??? Globalist Wall Street bankers. Follow the money trail on that one. Ever wonder why white nationalists called it the "Jew Klux Klan"???? The Nazis spit on the "South".
Dude just quit while you are behind. Just because the pandemics wiped out a ton of peoples, that justifies Andrew Jackson's "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" notion?
You mean quarter black Andrew Jackson who's father was killed by a Indian attack. Why, then would Jackson feel that way? Once again, your out of date. Your politics don't match now.
Jackson's financiers Belmont and NM de Rothschild were a far bigger problem with him, that was partially responsible for triggering the civil war as Northern economies were regressed by Jackson. But lets whine about the trail of tears and not understanding why it happened.
I prefer to learn my history is facts about actions. I do deep study on my own time.
I was wondering what the end goal of Critical Race Theory was. First hit in the web search: https://youtu.be/BkCfYoHXJ1M
The central problem with American history -- and America itself -- is the tension between the ideals of our founding documents and the reality of how both government and private institutions for centuries conspired to subvert those ideals when it came to non-whites. Unless you're going restrict history to being a mindless and dust-dry thread of names of presidents and dates of wars taught from 30,000 feet, you're going to have to get into the nitty-gritty of social and political life and there, I'm sorry, it's largely a story of various groups struggling to claim their rights as citizens and demand that American institutions live up to the ideals of the founding documents.
When it came to nonwhites? You mean how it came to white's themselves. This post represents your problem and your problem of "not getting it". Why "liberals" got into racism again blows me away. I though by the 2000's liberals had moved on. But they keep on trying to create fantasies that don't exist.
Simply put, the business class and the working class are not the same thing people. Especially with nonwhite expansion into the business class since 1900(and after 2000, woo, Hispanics are catching up to white's with median income), your point is doubly dead.
What a load of hooey. Racism never left and whites like yourself trying to con others into thinking that racism is dead isn't fooling "the liberals" or the "others".
Racism never left? Anti-white racism doesn't count then eh??
Anti-white racism will count when non-whites hold enough social power to make it count. Which isn't yet. Or any time soon. "Your mumbling." That you, Shootie?
lol, in the southwest, hispanics already have quite a bit of political power now. Maybe all blacks from the Rustbelt should return to the south, creating some major tribal warfare.
Your beliefs are 50 years out of date.
An interesting book on this subject is Frances Fitzgerald's America Revised.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316284246/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3
Lets also be clear about "critical race theory": Conservatives are doing nothing about it. The media is doing poor reporting again. If I were white Democrats up north, I would campaign in state elections on purging this junk from the state registry and arresting its activists for incitement.
The quote from mainstreamish liberal David Casalaspi is interesting because it is showing thoughtful reflection on wanting to avoid a narrative of history which balkanizes student populations along racial and gender lines.
A problem for liberals in the new culture war over CRT is they avoid any kind of discussion about issues with CRT. There seems to be a complete lack of interest. My guess is that any concerns over CRT are dismissed as right wing nonsense because to engage at all, even to a small degree, validates right wing complaints. But to conservatives it simply appears that liberals could care less about whatever CRT says. (Ditto for the MSM.) This implies CRT if fine with liberals since they can't even bother to read up on the subject or talk about it. So in that sense, the Fox News crowd is scoring points. Democrats are seen again as more extreme than they let on.
CRT is the theory to maximally balkanize along racial lines. But, yawn, no interest on a liberal-progressive blog for that topic.
Like German, Polish, Irish, Italian, coal miners, weren't discriminated against. Maybe Liberals should show that torrid history. That would score points in itself, but make "some" CRT believers mad.
Democrats need to speak out on that stuff and reject it. Its all they gotta do. In states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn, Kentucky, Missouri, its rather academic eh???
Any decent APUSH teacher will use plenty of excerpts from primary documents, featuring different POV and different biases, since document-based questions are a big feature of the APUSH exam. I use primary sources in my history classes pretty much constantly, and they are a useful complement to whatever narratives the text emphasizes.
I just wanted to say I've really appreciated your (and other APUSH teachers') contributions to the history/pedagogy posts, @sonofthereturnofaptitude; in the continued and tragic absence of any sort of comment upvoting, please consider this a long-winded +1
Wow, smell the manhood,
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1410062174500933633
I'm voting for Michael Phelps.
Is J.D. Vance getting dunked on again?
Point the way by going over all of it and providing sources to dig further.
Most of the info is there, but most kids (and adults) don't want to take the time and dig. They want to get the highlights and move on. Spending all focus on one aspect of history (which this is) just means folks only take that home. Still don't peek around the corner to actually get the best perspective.
"In his last strike speech, debs declared: i am a populist". Whoops. Annie