MCCC Professor perspective: History is not a single narrative
“History isn't here for you to like or dislike, it's there for you to learn from it, and if it offends you even better.” That's a meme I see quite often. I like it, because if you're highly partisan and ideological, history is going to upset you.
Two groups upset by how we teach history are the 1619 Project and the 1776 Project. We need to talk about them.
Journalists began the 1619 Project to “place slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the center of our national narrative history.” Historians like Gordon Wood criticize it for sweeping over-generalizations and factual errors, though Wood fails to ever identify factual errors.
Considering that the role of slavery and contributions of Black Americans is largely ignored by historians, particularly in high school textbooks, correcting the record makes sense to promote a greater appreciation for our democratic struggle for a “more perfect union.”
The 1776 Project is a “political action committee...to reform our public education system by promoting patriotism and pride in American history.” This makes sense. It’s like history as taught when I was a kid but led by a partisan group aimed at indoctrination. So is the left-leaning New York Times-backed 1619 Project. 1619 exists because they were offended we ignored parts of our history.
Both want us to value our democracy and history. The 1776 values rule of law and economic development; 1619 emphasizes slavery's importance to America. It seems 1776 just teaches the facts, while 1619 tries to revise history. The problem is, 1776 ignores facts that may offend our patriotism.
Rule of law protected slavery until Republican Abraham Lincoln's, likely illegal, Emancipation Proclamation. Constitutional revision ended slavery under pressure from Frederick Douglass. Rule of law defended segregation until 1964 under Democrat Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act, after Dr. King's illegal demonstrations closed roads and bridges to highlight injustices Black Americans suffered; thus the 1619 Project concludes Blacks were central to America's democratic progress.
Slavery was so important America banned the slave trade. Sound counterintuitive? Remember: slaves were investments. Importing slaves lowered the trade value of slaves who reproduced locally (Econ 101). Jefferson's fortune made from slave trading freed him to lead America's nascent democracy.
Jefferson is a contradiction; he had sexual relations with his dead wife's enslaved half-sister, Sally Hemings, but led our republican system of government. In 1860, the South had more millionaires than the North. Enslaved humans were worth $3.5 billion, more than other investments except the land itself. Slavery was instrumental as slavers invested in banks that promoted industrialization.
Wood argues defending slavery was not a major reason for the Revolution. We banned the slave trade right? But a leading historian who supports the 1619, Woody Holton, showed a cost-value analysis of slavery demonstrates that Britain's refusal to ban the slave import threatened the wealth of Virginians like George Washington. Wood is of a generation who ignored facts that didn't fit his patriotic story and claims later historians are “biased.” Good historians debate these issues and revise as we learn more. 1776 likes to pretend there is no debate. 1619 wants to foster more debate.
Founding Father William Whipple didn't support slavery. He signed the Declaration and hoped emancipating his slaves would dispense “the blessings of Freedom to all the human race in America.” Never heard of him? Contemporaries and later historians both ignored him. 1619 aims to correct this.
Both projects focus on Black Americans like inventor Elijah “the real” McCoy, or Biddy Mason, former slave turned millionaire real estate investor and philanthropist, but 1776 ignores Sally. She offends their sensibilities. Both emphasize the Tulsa Race Riots, but 1776 sees a triumph of human perseverance while 1619 sees a partial explanation for the modern wealth gap of Black Americans added to slavery's legacy.
The 1776 ignores facts that offend its ideology or presumes students are too immature to handle.
So our takeaway? Both projects focus attention on important, if seemingly contradictory facts; America is an amazing, if fragile, democracy and an economic enterprise to which slavery was foundational and to which Blacks made major contributions despite inequalities present still today.
Rule of law was abused by the powerful to protect slavery, segregation, and modern injustices today, but also used to confront those injustices.
As a history professor, my students should understand history is not a single narrative, it is an intense debate of evidence and every effort to frame a narrative story will downplay or overplay evidence. Students are intelligent. They understand this. You can't ignore the facts that offend or confuse you. Knowing it makes them better citizens and more patriotic.
Edmund La Clair is a professor of history at Monroe County Community College.
This article originally appeared on The Monroe News: MCCC Professor perspective: History is not a single narrative
