I wrote the following article for the opinion section of the New York Daily News. According to Education Week, “As of June 29, 26 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism, according to an Education Week analysis. Nine states have enacted these bans, either through legislation or other avenues.” During his last year in office, Trump denounced critical race theory and the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning “The 1619 Project” and said that anyone who taught these materials was “indoctrinating” their students and turning them against America. He called for “patriotic education.”
I wrote the following:
Republican-led states across the country, including Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Iowa and New Hampshire, have passed laws to ban the teaching of “critical race theory”; CRT is an academic concept that was first developed 40 years ago and has never been taught in public schools. The Tennessee legislature went so far as to pass a bill restricting discussion of racism or sexism in the classroom.
This issue is personal to me, for two reasons: I grew up in Houston in the 1940s, when it was a completely segregated city; and many years later, I was a friend of the late Derrick Bell, the founder of critical race theory.
In the Houston of my youth, every public and private facility was racially segregated: schools, mass transit, restaurants, hotels, public swimming pools and everything else. Grocery stores had two water fountains, one marked “white,” the other marked “colored.” Public buses had a movable marker with the word “colored,” which consigned Black people to the back of the bus. If whites needed more seats, the marker was pushed back, and Blacks stood. By custom, a Black person entered the house of a white person only through the back door. When a white and a Black approached each other on the sidewalk, the Black person was expected to step into the road to let the white person pass. The customs of white supremacy were well understood and seldom, if ever, violated.
In school, our history textbooks taught us about great American patriots, all of whom were white. The only person of color mentioned was George Washington Carver, who discovered many uses of peanuts. When we studied the Civil War, there were heroes on both sides (my junior high school was named for a Confederate hero, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston), but minimal mention of slavery or its cruelty. Reconstruction following the Civil War was taught as a time when Southern whites were oppressed by federal troops, opportunistic carpetbaggers, and ignorant Black politicians who ran their states into the ground.
It was many years later that I learned that this was the Confederate view of events, and that Reconstruction was a time when able Black men served honorably in Congress, and racially integrated state legislatures wrote new and progressive constitutions. And that, when Reconstruction ended in 1877, white Southerners quickly restored the status quo, replacing slavery with Jim Crow legislation that maintained racism, segregation and unequal opportunity for Blacks.
Many whites, myself included, believed that the 1954 Brown vs. Board decision, which overturned the fiction of “separate but equal,” marked the beginning of the end for racial segregation. The Civil Rights laws passed during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration in the mid-1960s strengthened the belief that racial inequality was defeated. The federal government and the federal courts would reverse any racial discrimination, we believed. No longer would places of public accommodation or public transit or public schools be allowed to bar Blacks, nor would Blacks be denied the right to vote.
This too was misleading. In the 1980s, I became friends with Prof. Derrick Bell, the first Black person ever to receive tenure at Harvard Law School. We had long discussions about whether racial progress was assured, as I then believed, or whether the changes were superficial, as he believed. Derrick insisted that progress was minimal because racism was so deeply rooted in American institutions. He is called the founder of critical race theory, which holds that racism is systemic and that Blacks will never achieve equality until we reckon with the past and confront the systems and beliefs that allow racism and segregation to persist, blighting our society.
An example is housing patterns, which did not evolve by accident or choice, but because — as Richard Rothstein showed in his book “The Color of Law” — racially discriminatory rules were imposed by the federal, state and local governments. Segregated neighborhoods produce segregated schools.
Contrary to the Republican propaganda machine, Derrick Bell was not a Marxist. He was not anti-white. Critical race theory is not taught in schools but debated in law schools. The current furor now threatens to roll back the inclusion of Black history in the history curriculum and to criminalize teaching about racism.
That would be a shame, because a nation can’t escape the sins of its past without confronting them directly. Grade school children should learn about the heroes of all races and ethnicities who helped to build our democratic institutions. High school students should learn about the crimes committed against Black people, the treatment of them as less than human, the lynchings, the massacres. This is not harmful to students, as Republicans claim. It is a necessary reckoning with our nation’s past. Democracy and unity must be built on honesty, not lies and ignorance.
We really need a Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission to address all the sins of racism over the centuries. It would be a beginning, a first step at defusing this explosive dilemma. Of course the GOP will scream communism, commie, Marxism-Leninism at full throat all day long into infinity. They will paint the members of such a commission as America haters much as Martin Luther King, Jr., was smeared as a commie and traitor to his country. McCarthyism never dies in this country.
Thank you, Diane, for this post clear and personal post, and for all you do on behalf of sanity and justice!
Thank you!
yes
Thank you, Diane.
AGREE with: “Grade school children should learn about the heroes of all races and ethnicities who helped to build our democratic institutions. High school students should learn about the crimes committed against Black people, the treatment of them as less than human, the lynchings, the massacres. This is not harmful to students, as Republicans claim. It is a necessary reckoning with our nation’s past. Democracy and unity must be built on honesty, not lies and ignorance.”
Glad I grew up in Hawai’i and even then, in textbooks … mostly white people are noted and I always found this to be STRANGE.
Thank you for sharing your insights and wisdom on CRT. I wish your article were syndicated so it would get a greater exposure to a larger audience. We will never address our problems unless we face them. The media keep talking about CRT in the context of a “culture war.” For me this issue is about truth. We need to face our complicated and often uncomfortable truth in order for us to make change. I shared this post on social media.
The Color of Law is a great book for understanding why our communities and schools have been and continue to be segregated. Schools are becoming more segregated due to vouchers and charter schools. There is a good story in Propublica recently about Benton Harbor, Michigan schools. It is a truly sad story. I have taught some of the students from there in Upward Bound and talked to their parents. The problems are not exaggerated. Education will go a long way towards giving black students a chance, but only when communities and schools become less segregated and give all a chance to succeed. And when will that be?
This is magnificent, Diane.Reposting.
The furor over critical race theory and The 1619 Project, as my friend James Harvey said to me, is an excellent example of “white privilege,” with whites lecturing Blacks about how they should write their own history.
Objections to the NYT’s 1619 Project are more nuanced than you are claiming. Critiques of the project are not merely examples of white privilege.
This book, for example is on my summer reading list:
The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History
The New York Times’ 1619 Project, launched in August 2019, mobilized vast editorial and financial resources to portray racial conflict as the central driving force of American history. The Project denigrated the democratic content of the American Revolution and of the Civil War, ignored the struggle for labor and civil rights in the twentieth century, and entirely omitted the role of abolitionists, of Frederick Douglass, and of Martin Luther King.
The book elaborates American history through lectures, essays, and interviews with eminent historians Gordon Wood, James M. McPherson, Victoria Bynum, James Oakes, Richard Carwardine, Adolph Reed Jr., Dolores Janiewski, and Clayborne Carson.
These lectures and essays counter today’s deep intellectual, social, and cultural crisis, manifested in the racialist theorizing of the NY Times’ 1619 Project, with the struggle for objective truth upon which the unity of the working class is based. An Afterword examines the reactionary premises of Trump’s “1776 Project.”
Please identify a factual error in The 1619 Project. Everything you mention are differences of interpretation, not factual errors. You can’t criticize a book only for what it doesn’t include.
Did you ever read Frederick Douglas’s great speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” He says precisely the same things as Hannah-Jones.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered for supporting black sanitation workers in Memphis who were trying to organize a Union.
I have a feeling you have never read 1619.
The height of white privilege is white people telling Black people how to write their history.
Time for honesty about CRT. YES
Is it time for honesty about a country founded on
a PARADOX ???
The contradiction is in plain view for all to see.
“The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie.” N.H.J.
Robert Koehler:
“Keep the focus on the ideal, as per the words of Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And keep it away from the lie: that Jefferson owned some 600 slaves, and that, indeed, one-fifth of the newly formed country were slaves.”
Does the hypothesis (democracy) fit the results?
I also shared Diane’s article to social media and commented…
Great article by a great hero of mine. Please read it.
Still, for me, the point of contention is not whether CRT should or should not be taught in school. It is whether CRT conveys any manner of legitimacy to the purely social construct called “race.” If it does, and I believe it does, then racial reckoning can only result in something “superficial” made more intransigent hence more dangerous.
While “racism” is real, “race” is not. “Racism” connotes behavior. “Race,” if it were real, would connote the social structure generating “racism.” But since “race” is not real, then there must some other more deeply fundamental structure generating “racism” we’ve yet to see and call out and name.
So I believe unless and until we become willing to see and call out and name this other structure, we will keep perpetuating “racism” and “sexism” and other troubling –isms, all of which this one other structure generates, I suggest.
“While “racism” is real, “race” is not.” So true! Most of the ELLs I taught were Black and brown, and I am white. They taught me more than I ever taught them about racism. We had some frank discussions about racism, and no parents ever complained. Despite our national discomfort about so-called race, these young people were so happy to be here.
great point: I taught what I knew to my mostly non-White students and they taught me what they knew. It was a great relationship.
“Please identify a factual error in The 1619 Project. Everything you mention are differences of interpretation, not factual errors. You can’t criticize a book only for what it doesn’t include.”
Puzzling comment. Surely 1619 is not merely a bald recitation of facts, but rather an academic interpretation/analysis. In any case, it is not holy writ, and it is not the case that all criticism of the project is white privilege.
As far as factual errors, the central premise of the book, that 1619 is the true founding of the US is a falsification. In fact, this claim has been retracted from the book and website.
The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key claims of the 1619 Project
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html
Nikole Hannah-Jones is an excellent journalist, not an academic or a historian. Her article is certainly not “a bald recitation of facts” and it is most certainly “interpretation/analysis.” None of us was alive when the disputed events occurred, which is why esteemed historians often debate and disagree about what “really” happened and why it happened. Can we be certain that slave owners did not support the Revolution to defend slavery? We can be certain that Lincoln’s views about black equality evolved. I have always reveredLincoln as a visionary and a hero, and I still do. But it’s also the case that Lincoln made statements that denied the equality of Blacks. People’s views do evolve, as I can attest, and Lincoln became great for asserting the equally of all men.
What makes the study of history fascinating is its complexity. We can never know the past for certain, although we can be certain that human slavery was an unmitigated evil. Unfortunately, many Americans didn’t think so in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Today, we react with revulsion to the images of lynching, but in the late19th century and early20th centuries, crowds of thousands of people viewed lynchings as an entertaining spectacle. There is no way that educated people can view the history of Blacks in American history without recognizing the horrific injustices and cruelty inflicted on people of color and their legacy. The more we know, the more we discuss, the better. The fact that this discussion is being denounced, censored, and banned in many states is sad indeed.
Not to lessen the horrors of atrocities committed in this country, but people have committed what we today consider unspeakable atrocities from time immemorial. Human sacrifice has been documented in many cultures. Being drawn and quartered always struck me as particularly brutal; but apparently crowds would watch such spectacles. And yet out of the midst of horrific brutality, we seem to find some value in living that can fill us with joy. Is it fair to judge history and its inhabitants only through our own moral outrage?
I like Glenn Loury’s perspective on this. He was on Marc Lamont Hill’s show the other day, and the result was an unusually (for this topic) respectful dialogue.
FLERP!,
Thank you for the link to this interesting discussion. I am now a big fan of Marc Lamont Hill, who managed to calmly get Glenn Loury to do more than offer platitudes that legitimize the right wing narrative of cancel culture and racism.
Hill made 2 important points:
“right overstates how much control they don’t have over the culture wars and over the practical so-called cancelling”
“Sometimes what the right calls “cancel” is just accountability. Maybe sometimes you do have to be called accountable for atrocious positions on things.”
I enjoyed listening to this. I liked hearing Glenn Loury’s allusion to this wife having the view that Marc Lamont Hill has. I can relate to Loury’s concern about controversial conservative speakers being shouted down on college campuses (although often that so-called “threat” to free speech is really exaggerated and peacefully protesting is equating with taking away someone’s right to speak). On the other hand, what wasn’t mentioned is how many college speakers on the left are “cancelled” because they aren’t paid huge amounts of money to come to campuses to speak in the first place. The most offensive voices on the left are almost never invited to campus to speak, so they don’t have to be cancelled. They don’t get tenure so they don’t have to be cancelled since their voices are silenced before they even get a chance to be cancelled.
NYC public school parent
“controversial conservative speakers” What makes them controversial ? Would the Proud Boys who spoke at the Metropolitan Republican Club be considered a “controversial conservative. “
Joel,
Not sure I understand your question, although probably my comment was awkwardly worded. Obviously, I don’t think the Proud Boys should be invited to speak anywhere but a Trump rally.
Glenn Loury was reduced to invoking Obama’s presidency (see, America’s not racist) and bemoaning the supposed victimization of NYT reporter Don McNeill, which even he seemed to realize weren’t really very strong arguments to counter the excellent points that Hill was making.
As usual, we see things extremely differently.
FLERP! says “As usual, we see things extremely differently.”
As usual, you prefer not to explain, so I’m left to assume that you believe:
the right understates how much control they don’t have over the culture wars and over the practical so-called cancelling
And
Maybe sometimes you don’t have to be called accountable for atrocious positions on things.
And
Obama’s presidency shows America is not a racist country.
The point was few if any of those that were met with demonstrations belong anywhere near a stage. Vile would be the more appropriate adjective.
Right. I agree there is often a false equivalency made.
I also believe that asking a well-compensated person in their mid 60s to understand that things that used to be acceptable to say in a teaching setting are no longer acceptable is something that has been happening for generations. The nasty remarks I recall a successful coach/teacher saying about students’ appearances in the early 1980s would be rightly called to task today. These days it is sometimes older liberals who believe they could never act in any implicitly racist way (an example is how long it took for Billy Crystal’s blackface act to be viewed that way — he did it at the 2012 oscars with scores of people thinking it was okay and afterward, defending it as okay). And while I get that Don McNeil feels he did nothing wrong, that doesn’t mean that he did nothing wrong and no one should have been allowed to criticize him. The entire Me, too movement is about changing what is viewed as acceptable standards of behavior instead of complicitly approving it by not speaking out. So I don’t view Don McNeil as the same kind of tragic victim of anti-racism that Glen Loury does. In my opinion, it’s a false equivalency to compare the tragedy of a privileged man experiencing criticism to the real victims of the implicit racism in our society. Just like I don’t see Billy Crystal as a victim, and unlike McNeil, Crystal was willing to acknowledge that times had changed rather than to defend what he was doing. Julia Sweeney doesn’t defend her “It’s Pat” SNL character. Al Franken lost his Senate seat and paid a heavy price for past actions, but one thing he immediately did was not try to defend his actions. And he hasn’t been “canceled” because he still has a public voice, as do others who still defend their actions as okay but whine about criticism “canceling” them.
Thanks, Flerp. I really enjoyed listening to this conversation–that two black men of very different political positions could have a serious and respectful conversation. Neither one resorted to histrionics or hyperbolic speech to color the dialogue. They both were very comfortable with the fact that they had a different perspective and each acknowledged the merit in what each other was saying.
I’m not a fan of Marc Lamont Hill, but I do appreciate that he generally comports himself with respect and is occasionally willing to have guests on who disagree with him. It would be a shame if Loury was only invited on Fox.
If you liked this discussion, check out Loury’s YouTube videos with John McWhorter. They’re great.
I wrote your suggestion down. Now if I don’t lose the scrap of paper I wrote it on…
Thank you for this – it so concisely sums up the real issues.
A few of the high-profile leaders of the white supremacist Repugnican Party have learned just enough about Critical Race Theory to express their puffed-up outrage at and denials of the idea that there is systemic racism in the United States.
Lets’ be clear about this. Systemic racism is the existence of systems that operate in such a way as to treat minority persons less well because of their race. Given that definition, the existence of systemic racism in the United States is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Blacks in the United States are more likely than whites to be
pulled over by police
ticketed when pulled over
arrested for the same behaviors
beaten while in custody
sentenced
given longer sentences
killed in an encounter with police
paid less for identical work
charged higher interest given identical credit scores
charged more for equivalent real estate
sent to the principal’s office
made to wait longer (much longer) to vote
followed by clerks in stores
and on and on and on.
In each case, a SYSTEM IN AMERICA treats blacks WORSE than it treats whites. One has to be WILLFULLY IGNORANT not to see that this is the way it is here.
And, of course, whites have always screamed and hollered that they weren’t guilty of this stuff. George Wallace stood in the door of the Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to block, symbolically,, the entrance of black students and proclaimed BOTH that he was determined to have “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation for ever” AND that he wasn’t a racist and was, in fact, a great friend to black people.
When a vile toad like Cruisin’ Ted Cruz says that he absolutely rejects the idea that the United States is systemically racist, it’s just another example of George Wallacing.
So true. All of those examples are undeniably true. Race cannot be excluded from conversation in the United States or in any of the former colonies or colonizers, for that matter. Race will always be a problem when one people crosses an ocean to take over another people. The sun will never set on the pain caused within the British Empire. There is no date in history, not 1865, 1954, 1965, 2008, or any year one can point to and say that was the time when the spirits of animus and mechanisms of racial discrimination were removed from the land. No individual raised in this country can honestly say they have no feelings about race and it doesn’t matter to them at all. Racism needs to be addressed.
Beautifully said, leftcoastteacher!!! I found this line in your comment particularly artful and moving:
The sun will never set on the pain caused within the British Empire
As was this one:
There is no date in history, not 1865, 1954, 1965, 2008, or any year one can point to and say that was the time when the spirits of animus and mechanisms of racial discrimination were removed from the land.
Bravo!
Thank you.
The sun will never set on the pain caused within the British Empire. ”
It may not set on the pain, but it set long ago on their scummy, racist empire itself, thank goodness.
But for some odd reason the Brits act like they are still bathed in it’s rays.
The reality is that they have become the lap dog of the American empire, believing that if they cozy up to American presidents, some of the vain glory will rub off on them.
It’s actually pathetic.
And the fact that the Brits still dote on the symbol of the bygone days — a Queen and a bunch of other idiotic Royals — is the most pathetic thing of all.
The truth shall set you free! The faux arguments regarding CRT is nothing more than a blatant attempt to keep the far Right uninformed and ignorant. That’s the goal.. keep their base ignorant so that they may use their donations to fill their pockets.
If it wasn’t CRT it would be Mr Potato Head or trans athletes . The cancel culture on the right knows no limits. Rational discussion is probably wasted .
They tried Dr. Seuss but that was soon forgotten.
Now they are trying Gwen Berry. Not sure how that is working out for them.
But I see a pattern. In order for these right wing culture war fights to get legitimacy, they need to be treated as “very important” and legitimized by the mainstream media, with help from a few “very concerned” liberals like Sean Wilentz.
They should be marginalized, but they aren’t.
Exactly, Joel. CRT is an historical interpretation. Historians argue all the time. We love it. It makes us feel vital. But the distant right wing aims to take rational arguments and use them to sit Americans so they can rule from the perspective of the few. So they spin CRT as a plot.
Good point about historians, Roy.
And, it got me to thinking. It’d be interesting to ask the students what history they’re interesting in talking about…what topics they’d like to interpret and debate. I’m sure some people do that.
I’m feeling like a bit of ancient history myself these days, ha, ha.
Take care!
Somewhere out there is a brave hero of a teacher willing risk everything to challenge the law. Somewhere out there is a powerful attorney prepared to take up the teacher’s defense. Somewhere out there is a reporter ready to take the case to the American public. Almost exactly 100 years ago, there was a pandemic, and also almost exactly 100 years ago, there was The State of Tennessee v John Thomas Scopes.
Amen
The Repugnican Party is running scared. It knows that Democrats outnumber them. It knows that the fastest-growing demographic groups are Democrats. It knows that young people are overwhelmingly Democrats and overwhelming oppose them on all the issues. And so they cook up this BS to try to justify doing Thought Control in schools and attempt to subvert democracy with attacks on voting rights.
The proper response by teachers to the Repugnican Thought Police is to double down on teaching the history of genocide, slavery, and racism in the United States. Give them what they most fear–informed awakened children.
I remember like it was yesterday in fall 2004 when same sex marriage was the “wedge issue” the Republicans used to motivate their base. It was despicable.
Now, look where the country is. The G.O.P. got their president in that year, GWB Jr,, but the nation moved on.
I can only hope rational minds and our “better angels” prevail again now -plus we don’t end up with a Trump 2.0 (or, should I say, -2..0) Then, there are all the mini-Trumps running around out there. (Cue puking noise!)
Meanwhile, have a wonderful holiday weekend, all. You deserve it.
Same sex marriage is a good example.
I don’t think that wedge issues work if they aren’t given legitimacy by those in the mainstream media and supposedly respected voices that are moderate/left.
Sean Wilentz and some other historians got coopted to help amplify a racist attack on the 1619 project. Wilentz would surely deny it, but I noticed that in his defense of his view, published in the Atlantic, he chose NOT to demand the resignation of distinguished Harvard historian Jill Lepore because Wilentz believed Lepore gave too much weight to an event that he, as the superior authority, deems wrong:
Wilentz writes: “…Silverstein’s claim about Dunmore’s proclamation and the coming of independence is no more convincing when it turns up, almost identically, in a book by a distinguished authority; Lepore also relies on a foreshortened version of the Rutledge quote, presenting it as evidence of what the proclamation actually did, rather than as one man’s expectation as to what it would do.”
I have been searching for Wilentz writing letters to Harvard and to academic publications denouncing Jill Lepore and her entire body of work but couldn’t find them. He knew he didn’t have a far right noise machine at his back to help him discredit a white woman. Jill Lepore has privilege and presumably Wilentz’ implicit bias means he does not believe a privileged white woman should be discredited because he disagrees with the weight she places on various events. Wilentz still considers Lepore “distinguished!” Although perhaps if he had a right wing propaganda machine behind him he would convince himself that denouncing Jill Lepore and the entirety of her work because she dared to give weight to something that Wilentz, in his superiority, deems unworthy, Wilentz would denounce Lepore, too.
Prominent mainstream voices helped same sex marriage become a wedge issue in 2004. Instead of marginalizing those who made same sex marriage into a scary bogeyman, there were too many voices who “thoughtfully” acknowledged that same sex marriage was wrong or “too divisive” or “we aren’t ready for it” and those voices gave legitimacy to the wedge issues. In 2004, Barack Obama, campaigning for Illinois Senate, said “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” and remained wishy-washy until 2012 (his hand was forced by Biden).
CRT became a wedge issue because it got legitimacy from the mainstream. If non-right wingers with a bully pulpit in the media and academia had marginalized it as a nonsensical, ridiculous fear of something that can’t even be defined, no one would be talking about it. But instead the anti-CRT movement got legitimacy by so-called “thoughtful” people with implicit biases who believed that “both sides have equally important points”, and made it near impossible to separate truth from lies.
The far right is trying to make Gwen Berry at the Olympic Trials into a wedge issue. I noticed that Jen Psaki gave a brilliant answer to shut it down. If no one but the right wing media legitimizes the manufactured outrage against Gwen Berry, it has very little power. But if the “both sides” narrative takes hold (“maybe she’s terrible, maybe she’s not, how can we know”) the far right wing. The manufactured outrage about the so-called Dr. Seuss “ban” didn’t work either. It remained marginalized without a group of mainstream scholars and publications expressing how they were “very concerned” about free speech.
Very interesting.
I’ll need to reread your comments and think about them more.
Of course, it’s always a puzzle as to what ignites the public’s imagination….what catches fire. If the formula was easy, it could be put in a bottle.
Trump seems to have uncorked that secret in a tragic way. Somewhere I read how he’d go to these rallies early on and when something outrageous he said got a big response from the audience, he’d come back to the phrase again and again and keep saying it.
There’s this crazy feedback loop between him and his admirers.
He’s like this bizarre, near empty mirror of some of the nation’s worst impulses. Which he then amplifies.
And, it worked, enough to get him elected president of the United States.
Hence the G.O.P.’s unwillingness to cast him aside.
Readers here who know more about demagogues throughout history would probably say, yeah, that’s what happens.
It’s classic in a way.
But we’ve lived through our own, 21st century, high-tech version.
As to Jill Lepore…I’ll have to read more about that. (?)
Thank you, Diane. I shared your experiences in Jacksonville, FL. As we get older no one will know the story from a Southern white woman’s point of view. I was 15 when Brown vs. BOE happened and starting waking up. I had never given people of color much thought as I had so few chances to know them. My first black friend happend in 1973 and we were amazed that both our grandmothers made great sweet potato pies and collards among so many other things. But never do I remember discussing slavery at school or with my new friend. I married a Yankee (much to my father’s horror) and moved north believing it to be the promised land. Oh, was I wrong.
I was an educator for 50 years and did my best to encourage teachers and teachers-to-be that if they had problems with students who were diffferent from them in any way, teaching was not the profession for them.
We honor, respect, and carefully teach all students. Every single one. Imagine being a teacher educator in this country and not being encouraged to discuss diversity, including the history of slavery, immigration, and the deplorable treatment of indigenous people. Take those subjects out and what do you teach about America?
Lynne, you remind me of the time some years ago when I met a black man who grew up in Houston and was the same age as me. He was a successful architect when I met him, and we lamented the fact that in our youth we lived in different worlds and could never have interacted.
Diane, I had a similar experience with my voice teacher, a black man at my university who was my age. Bill Brown and I talked often of how differently we grew up. Thank goodness we became friends in our 40’s and enjoyed comparing stories.Oh, all those people we never knew in our childhood and youth because it was forbidden!
Very well stated.