History, Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project

The recent controversies over Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project of the New York Times call into question how we interpret history and how it is best portrayed to students at various times in their education.

What is history?  Is it a set of events?  Merriam-Webster defines history as ‘a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes’. Is history subjective?  Can there be a truly objective analysis of history?

Any historical period has an infinite number of events.  The very act of choosing which events to list in an historical account is already an ‘interpretation’ of history, a subjective view.  Moreover, a mere list of chronological events does little to help one understand what actually occurred during an historical period.  The historian is not a chronicler, but rather an interpreter, an analyst.  It is the job of every true historian to attempt to comprehend the underlying significance of events, to depict the mood, the atmosphere, the Zeitgeist that influences and motivates human activity

Long ago societies recorded their history by creating myths and heroic sagas for the purpose of indoctrinating their young in a specific way to serve the community.  Accurate depictions and analysis were neither desired nor attempted. 

Modern historical accounting has evolved over the last couple of centuries as an ever-increasing volume of information, letters, documents, etc. has become available for analysis.  The way that history is recounted also evolves as society’s consciousness evolves.  Our perceptions of conquest, enslavement, colonization, exploration, religion, science, economic growth and other components of history have undergone significant changes.  Those changes impact our interpretation of history and cause us to take a closer look at events and relationships that may have seemed less significant to earlier historians.

For example, the history of the American colonial period was, for much of our nation’s existence, portrayed in terms of the development of the economic and political evolution of the white colonists, with occasional references to Native American hostilities.  The virtual annihilation of the Native American people and culture, which in modern terms could easily be categorized as genocide, was not deemed historically significant.

Now one can argue that the virtual annihilation of the indigenous people by the colonizers was no different or more heinous than what had been done by conquering nations throughout history up to that point.  But to argue that this aspect of our nation’s history should not be studied in more detail is a call to whitewash history.

The same is true for the analysis of slavery and all its ramifications.  There is certainly no doubt that slavery has had tentacles throughout our country’s development and played a major role in many if not most of the major events.  The goal of the NY Times 1619 project – ‘to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country’ – is a worthy exercise in historical analysis.  Should it become the primary means of viewing the nation’s history?  Should it take precedence over other analyses that focus on the development of concepts of liberty, freedom and equality?  No, and there is no danger that it would.  History is much too complex to be viewed through a single lens.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is too complex for a full discussion here.  The objective of CRT is to identify systemic aspects of racism (i.e. laws, policies and other institutional implementations of racism - intended or unintended) that have impacted the plight of African Americans. 

Critics complain that CRT’s goal is to portray everyone as racist, but that is not the case.  If we truly want to address the problem of race in America, then we need to identify the remaining institutional barriers to African American progress and eliminate them.  For example, the fact that education budgets in the USA are locally funded is effectively a racist policy because we continue to have segregated communities and black communities are significantly poorer than white communities.

If our civilization is to continue to progress, then it must be honest with itself about both its successes and its failures, its heroism and its villainy.  We know that our ancestors had a different level of social consciousness and morality than we have today.  Many of their actions were deplorable.  But they also made possible the more enlightened and peaceful world we live in today.  Humanity was and still is full of contradictions.

The objective of a critical analysis of America’s history is not to drag its name in the mud or slander its favorite sons, though recognizing our forefathers as all-too-human and taking them down off their pedestals is a very healthy thing to do.  No one wants to make our children into America-haters.  But how are we to continue to form a more perfect union if we cannot acknowledge both the good and the bad of what has transpired?

History’s role is neither to glorify nor to condemn.  Its role is to understand!  The history we teach to our children and indeed, the history that we learn as adults, must help us identify the best way forward for our society.  This can only be done with a sober, clear-eyed approach that offers a multiplicity of views and interpretations for us to consider.