Tag: What History is For

Washington is a foreigner

We’ve had a very unsettling experience here at the HP.

Our 2012 post “Washington’s Farewell Address: Avoiding Foreign Entanglements” has been trending since Inauguration Day, most likely because of this section:

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.  The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

—This is the part of the Address that most people remember (the idea, if not the actual words). Here Washington is warning against political factions, and he equates the formation of political parties with inevitable dissension. This definition of what can happen when partisanship runs rampant must sound familiar to us today: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension… leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual [who] turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” When the political process grinds to a halt because one or more political parties refuses to work with others, only a charismatic individual can take the lead, and this kind of cult of personality is antithetical to democracy.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

—Political factions or parties “[serve] always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.” Again, so familiar to us today, at a time of great partisan conflict.

Formal despotism has come upon us in the United States under Trump. Whether it becomes permanent remains to be seen, but that is the intention of Trump and everyone who supports him. Factionalism, magnified beyond all possibility before the advent of social media, has agitated our nation with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindled the animosity of one part against another, and foment first riot and now insurrection (by way of the executive branch).

Washington… the name conjures up the entire American journey, from colonies to revolution to democratic republic. The highs of Enlightenment, Constitution, and the quest for representative government contrasted with the lows of colonizing conquest, slavery, and denying women the rights of citizens. The triumph of creating the phrase “with liberty and justice for all” and the failure of having to struggle and fight for over two centuries to make it more of a reality. (Yes, the phrase comes from the 1885 pledge of allegiance, but think about why that is–why someone 110 years after the Revolutionary War began, a veteran of the U.S. Army during the Civil War, used it to express American patriotism). Washington played a crucial role in founding and preserving the United States, quite literally for better and for worse. His enlightened understanding of liberty and willingness to fight for it stand beside his callow and inhuman reluctance to stop breeding human beings for sale when he understood that it was, in fact, clearly morally evil. We inherit both sides in America. The fight since his time has been to reduce the evil by growing the good until we finally achieve real democracy. As young people, when we saw Washington’s image in a K12 textbook, it reminded us we are inheritors of a just war for equality.

But now, one of us recently saw this classic, familiar image of Washington somewhere in passing, and had the weird and troubling realization that it felt foreign. They had, in short, the feeling that the line has been broken.

The line from our founding through the centuries to today, with its successes and failures on the path toward full democracy, is broken. We’re not connected with our past anymore. Washington is no longer someone to learn lessons from as we shape our collective identity. His image used to be a nutshell for the idea that doing the work to make liberty and justice for all a reality is what makes us Americans. He left so much unfinished and even untouched. Generations that followed him took up that work, honoring the good in our history but insisting on calling out and destroying the bad.

But now Americans are being told that we have no collective identity, only factions, only one of which is righteous. That fighting for justice is not our inheritance or our mission. That, in fact, our society has always been just because it has always benefitted rich straight white Christians. That, we are now told, is what we need to make sure continues.

The majority of our current government and our citizens no longer understand what’s good in our history, let alone acknowledge the evil within it. They’re destroying history, deleting its records, burning its archives, and forcibly teaching something new and false and deadly, dedicated to the principle that no humans are created equal to rich straight white Christians.

Is the break irreparable–permanent? Not yet. Maybe not ever, if the minority who stay on the path to full democracy refuse to leave it. The sickening nature of this moment should be a tonic that keeps us on that path. Maybe moments of disconnect, destruction, and rupture like this are what it takes to remind us of the high stakes of this battle. For now, not recognizing Washington anymore is pretty strong medicine to take.

Authoritarians owning history?

What is an “unproven concept?

Ray Rodrigues, chancellor of the state university system in Florida, believes he knows. He’s one of the many officials overseeing the censorship and government control of higher ed curricula in almost every state in the U.S. Florida was an early leader in this authoritarianism, so we can look at them in particular. In 2023, the state government issued undergraduate general-education requirements–in other words, the courses that people getting a bachelor’s degree in any Florida institute of higher eduction may be offered. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the state law “curtails ‘identity politics,’ distortions of major historical events, and ‘unproven, speculative, or exploratory content’ in the curriculum.”

As historians, we immediately see that second phrase, but all of these efforts are efforts to own history–to control what historical archives, artifacts, and other resources will be preserved and which will be gutted in order to be remade into authoritarian-friendly resources; which institutions offer degrees in history; and, of course, to control who writes history, what they write about, and how.

“Identity politics” is interestingly presented as obviously bad. There’s no need for them to explain why it’s harmful. The phrase has been rigorously bent by Republicans in this country to mean “ridiculous, untrue claims that there are many human identities (PS: there aren’t) that should be accepted as real and natural and not be discriminated against.” With this broad definition, authoritarian agents can go to war with almost any “claim” they like.

“Distortions” of historical events also requires, even begs for, clarifying detail. The horrid irony, of course, is that these authoritarian agents make their living distorting historical events.

Finally, “unproven content”… again, so broad as to be meaningless, unless it is to be wielded as an all-purpose weapon against anything that isn’t distorted to represent authoritarianism. But there’s little need for us to describe it when Ray Rodrigues is happy to do it for us:

“When a state like Florida can say we’ve eliminated these unproven concepts from general education,” thereby relegating them to electives and other courses that students opt to take, Rodrigues said, “that puts Florida in a position to say, ‘We are addressing the No. 1 concern the American public has expressed about higher education.’”

The “number one” concern he refers to in order to justify the entire censorship project is left completely undefined. Americans are “concerned” about “unproven concepts”. That’s it.

What are some of the harmful, specious “identity politics”, “unproven concepts”, and “distortions” that have been targeted in Florida? Here are examples an administrator at FIU shared with the Chronicle:

  • A course called “Labor and Globalization” is “too focused on struggles/challenges of those in low-wage jobs” and should be revised. 
  • “The Basic Ideas of Sociology” and “Global Women’s Writing: Gendered Experiences Across Societies and Cultures” — are “too focused on women” and should be removed from the general-education curriculum.
  • “Theories of Black America” and “Global Gender Issues” deal with race and gender.
  • “Disability and Society” (no reason stated in the article)
  • “Sociology of Gender” and “Anthropology of Race and Ethnicity” – “our administration (provost and dean) has made clear that they do not think that either of these is a battle worth fighting”
  • World Regional Geography
  • The Basic Ideas of Sociology
  • Basic Communication Skills (“no Western canon”)
  • Introduction to Machine Learning (“confirm course meets the ‘natural-science criteria’ of the law”)
  • Perspectives on the Short Story

It’s obvious why courses explicitly focused on unproven concepts like race, sex, and gender were removed/banned. What’s more insidious are the seeming outliers. Sociology is clearly considered to promote “liberal” ideas by authoritarians; studying human societies from anything other than a religious standpoint will open the door to “identity politics.” Ditto studying world geography, where students would inevitably learn about other races. America-first is the curricular mandate here. Banning a communications course because it doesn’t include “western canon” seems like deliberate provocation by ignorant people drunk on their own power.

The story of what happened to the course “Perspectives on the Short Story” tells us all we need to know: after it was removed, the English professor teaching it contacted the chair of the department, Andrew Epstein. the ideally named person teaching it, Robin Truth Goodman, reports that Epstein: “told her he thought he could make a case for the short-story course by changing its title from ‘Perspectives on’ to ‘Introduction to the Short Story,’ which to me just means they didn’t like the idea of difference in perspective.”

Yes, Dr. Goodman is correct. A course was banned without anyone looking at what it taught or how. A word they have banned was in the title, and that was all it took. If “Labor and Globalization” changed its name to “Capitalism and how it Benefits Society” the course would be reinstated.

Every battle we face today in the U.S. is about owning history. Real historians do what they can to expand that ownership, by teaching real history to the general public, wherever they may be. Researching real events and people in the past and faithfully recording what they did, then thoughtfully and objectively hypothesizing about why what they did is important, how it shaped events and people that followed them, and impact us to this day, is what doing history is. It is always speculative and exploratory as hypotheses are formed. Established hypotheses–canonical history–can and must always be challenged by real historians doing the above, and not by authoritarian lackies making (white, straight, male, Christian) things up as they go along and saying it’s history.

Do whatever you can wherever you are to stand up to fake history. Every small action helps.

The last American president…?

We just watched President Biden’s short farewell address. In it he reiterated that America is great when it offers possibility to everyone, sustains its democratic institutions, keeps the three powers separate, and does not put the president above the law.

These principles were once considered givens in any discussion of what America means, how our government works and what it protects, and what our society represents. Now they are reclassified as liberal talking points, partisan ideals actively opposed and scorned by the majority of Americans.

Last week, on January 10, the president-elect appeared in court onscreen to have any punishment for his felony conviction waived–an “unconditional discharge”–by judge Juan Merchan. Here’s how the New York Times described it:

“Donald Trump the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant” would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency, Justice Merchan said, explaining that only the office shielded the defendant from the verdict’s gravity.

“This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroaching on the highest office of the land is an unconditional discharge,” Justice Merchan said.

He then wished Mr. Trump “godspeed” and departed the bench.

Despite the lenience, the proceeding carried symbolic importance: It formalized Mr. Trump’s status as a felon, making him the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency.

Yesterday, January 14, Special Counsel Jack Smith (again reported by the NYT) issued his final report:

Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted President-elect Donald J. Trump on charges of illegally seeking to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, said in a final report released early Tuesday that the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Mr. Trump in a trial, had his 2024 election victory not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

“The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He continued: “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

One president goes out, struggling to get the words out as he repeats what Americans used to take for granted, whether they liked it or not, and another comes in, effortlessly destroying what he doesn’t like, to the delight of his followers.

There’s been a lot of talk about what Vice President Kamala Harris “did wrong” in her campaign for president. If only she had done this or that… but it’s all too clear that she lost not because of anything she did or didn’t do, but because the majority of people in this country don’t want democracy and so voted against it. Those who didn’t vote fall into this category.

We reference history here, but there is no historical precedent for what we’re going through, or for what’s to come. At least not in American history. There are many historical precedents for it in other nations. The comparison to Nazi Germany is not overblown.

So what’s the role of the historian in America now? President Biden said it’s our turn to stand guard. Standing guard means a dogged fight, as we now from our own history. It means young children walking a gauntlet of armed mobs to desegregate our public schools. It means women withstanding violence and discrimination for the right to vote. It means gay people marching in the streets through hate-filled crowds to claim their citizenship. It means fighting a civil war to end slavery. Standing guard is not silent, passive work but a daily, active resistance to the forces of fascism. It means standing by the truth and refusing to go along with lies. All battles for civil rights are long and terrible ordeals. But the results when we win those battles are what make life worth living.

So that’s what we’ll be doing, here and elsewhere. People sometimes comfort themselves in dangerous times by saying “history is cyclical–these troubled times will pass.” And that’s true. But the cycle of history only moves when people put their shoulders to the wheel to move it. We’ve seen anti-democracy Americans throw their bodyweight into pushing the nation into a future of destruction, and so we’re moving in that direction. But an equal and opposite reaction can come–if we work at it. It won’t just happen. It will take decades to turn that tide. But what else is worth doing? We can’t think of a better way to spend our time.