Teaching Slavery and Other Democratic Shortcomings in the History Classroom

My last essay on the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri elicited positive feedback and, unsurprisingly, pushback and criticism. When I shared the essay on Twitter, a fellow North St. Louis county native by the name of Alan R. Knight (whom I’ve never met in person or previously interacted with online) tweeted me more than thirty times expressing his belief that I “should be more responsible” when discussing this topic. He provided a laundry list of grievances that never addressed the content of my essay, but instead conveyed a peculiar theory for explaining the economic and social issues currently plaguing North St. Louis county. According to Mr. Knight, much of these problems revolved around the teaching of slavery in history classrooms. In teaching slavery, north county educators are preaching “hatred,” “propaganda,” “victimization,” and “slander” to the area’s African American population in an attempt to teach them to hate the United States, rely on the state and federal government for welfare handouts, and give votes and power to the Democratic party (“democrat slavers,” according to Mr. Knight). He says we live in a fully equal society and that blacks are completely at fault for any “racist hatred” against them.

Most rational readers, I hope, can easily see the ridiculousness and silliness of these claims.

There are plenty of history teachers around the United States who teach this country’s history of slavery and choose not to associate with the Democratic party. Over nine-tenths of all entitlement benefits in the U.S. go to elderly, disabled, or working households – not working-age people who simply refuse to work. Mr. Knight’s blaming of “racist hatred” on the victims of racism rather than actual racists is nothing new within the so-called “race conversation” in America. As I’ve argued repeatedly, teachers are often seen as the sole influence in a child’s upbringing when in reality schools are merely one part of a larger community effort to raise a child. And the idea of a fully equal society becoming reality in social practice is most likely impossible because the precise definition of what constitutes “equality” constantly changes over time as new questions force society to reconsider the boundaries of individual freedom, fair play, and equal protection under the law. This is not to suggest that equality doesn’t exist in some capacity or that the United States has not experienced great advances in economic, social, and political equality during its history. Far from it. It’s safe to say I am probably more content living under the boundaries of equality in 2014 than if I were to live under the boundaries of equality from 1860. It just means there will never be a time when we’ll all shake hands, say “everything’s equal!,” and dispose of our laws, justice systems, and lawyers.

Mr. Knight, however, challenged me on a philosophical level to consider the role of slavery in the history curriculum. What is the importance of teaching slavery in a U.S. history class, regardless of grade level?

As countless historians, scholars, and citizens have argued, the worst aspects of U.S. history–slavery, Indian extermination and western expansion, segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching, imperialism, and mass incarceration–are not merely blips along the road to American democracy as we understand it today. They were fundamental building blocks in its growth, and you cannot honestly describe this nation’s history without addressing them. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argued earlier this year, “to celebrate freedom and democracy while forgetting America’s origins in a slavery economy is patriotism à la carte.” Our nation’s capitol was literally built with slave labor, for crying out loud.

Teaching slavery is not a form of propaganda or victimization, nor should its existence in the U.S. history curriculum be a partisan talking point in which parties debate whether or not it should be in the curriculum in the first place. Slavery is a part of our history whether we like it or not. Teaching our students of its wrongs illuminates the vast gulf between democratic principles and democratic practices. It also exposes the difficulty of finding a balance between liberty and order in a republican democracy.

It’s also true that we should acknowledge the history of antislavery and the eventual emancipation of all slaves with the passing of the 13th amendment in 1865. Many heroes in U.S. history have put their lives on the line to right serious wrongs and promote peace, justice, and freedom. These people deserve our recognition, historical memories, and other acts of public commemoration. But how do students come to understand the challenges these people faced if you don’t first expose them to the wrongs and inequalities of the society in which they lived? How do students develop a genuine appreciation for abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Theodore Weld, or the Grimke sisters without exposing them to the history of slavery or the fact that the abolitionist movement was very small and almost universally hated throughout the country during the antebellum era? To focus only on what we today consider “a good fight against inequality” without discussing those inequalities in depth is to put the cart before the horse in historical thinking and teaching. Talking only about “good history” is boring and uninspiring to students. It seems to me that if we want our students to feel like empowered citizens who can help make positive changes in our communities, we should expose them to this nation’s historical failures and the ongoing fight to make society more just, humane, and equitable. We’ve come a long way, but we’ve still got a long way to go.

I didn’t respond to all of Mr. Knight’s grievances, but for those interested you will find part of our twitter conversation below.

Advertisements

7 responses

  1. I run into this issue when I teach about America’s past in my American History to 1865 survey class in college. Students have absolutely no idea in many cases how slavery began in the American colonies or even what it really involved. The theme of racism has not been explained to them because they generally get a short and fast history written from the dominant cultural view of the nation’s past.

    If anyone think they can teach US History and not bring up racism or slavery, then they need to show me their degrees in history and what they base their opinion on. Every time I state that (degrees history) those that argue with me stop talking. That is because they do not have any degree in history let alone a degree in anything. I continue to stress the part about them showing me facts and evidence to support their case. That too results in silence.

    I point them in the direction of Edmund Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom as well as Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. It is naturally a futile idea to expect them to actually read something written about the past which is supported by primary sources. This is a problem because it shows that they are not looking for answers or facts to develop their opinions on, but rather anything that supports what they believe in. This is where the differences between historians and amateurs occur.

    Historians develop their opinions based upon factual evidence. Amateurs select evidence to support their beliefs. Not surprisingly, there is often a wide gap between the two. What I find amazing is that people will reject what a historian says in favor of what an amateur says just because they only want to hear what they agree with. Unfortunately for them, history doesn’t change to suit their beliefs. It exists on its terms.

    If we leave out slavery and racism, then we are no longer teaching history. We might as well be teaching the History of Middle-Earth or something else because it will be just as fictional as that history is.

    1. Thanks for commenting, Jimmy. This whole history thing is a lot harder than most people realize or are willing to acknowledge.

      1. It is because they are not historians. I can take my history textbook and hand it to my critics and ask them to select what to teach. They can’t do it. I can show them the objectives, course plans, lesson plans, and syllabus. Every time they say I need to add, “this or that.” I reply by asking what to cut out in order to fit what they want taught into the class. They cannot answer because they never conceive of the idea of cutting anything out.

        They do not know their history. They do not understand how it works. They do not know how to teach. Yet, they think they should be able to tell us what to teach and how to do it. I had my wife’s heart surgeon tell me once that history was his worst subject. This is a guy that literally holds someone’s lives in his hands. He told me that the people that studied history as a major thought differently. He was right. It is a matter of inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning.

  2. He attempted to rope me in. However, I just refused to participate in his opinions. This is a great response, Nick! That sound you hear is my applause.

    1. Thanks, Emmanuel! I appreciate it.

What do you think? Leave a comment here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: