[image_credit]REUTERS/Leah Millis[/image_credit][image_caption]President Donald Trump[/image_caption]
Trump’s attempt to censor histories of race hearkens back to early 20th century attempts by the federal government to stifle public criticism of racist laws and practices.
Black newspapers’ editorials seen as unpatriotic
Between 1917 and 1945, federal agencies, most prominently the FBI and Office of War Information, investigated Black newspapers and magazines like the Chicago Defender and The Messenger for sedition. The charge was that editorials they ran in opposition to lynching, poll taxes, and other aspects of Jim Crow reality were unpatriotic, especially in a time of war.
The FBI viewed white local officials in the South as “experts” on “their Negroes.” And so, the FBI relied on local sheriffs, postmasters, and others to report on suspicious activity, including reading habits. Several local governments took advantage of the federal government’s assault on the First Amendment during World War I to try to stem the tide of the Great Black Migration. Southern cities were losing Black workers, many of whom read about jobs in the Defender and other northern papers. Some counties passed laws outlawing the sale of Black newspapers; others turned a blind eye to mob violence against Black newspaper sellers and readers.
Under the guise of patriotism, Black people were beaten, even shot for daring to read or distribute the news. Through this mix of brutality and warping of the First Amendment, white officials hoped to stop the in-flow of information, the out-flow of cheap labor, and stifle any hint of dissent against racial apartheid.
The role of the Pullman porters
But Jim Crow officials and local thugs didn’t take into account the stealth activism of Pullman porters. Most whites who traveled the rails viewed the Pullman porters as happy and subservient, with no purpose in life other than to serve white travelers. In reality, many porters were college educated; they were forced to take jobs in the service industry only because Jim Crow laws and hiring practices made it impossible for them to get hired in professions reflective of their education and ability.
[image_caption]Catherine Squires[/image_caption]
Like many of his other outrageous acts this year, Trump’s call to create a “patriotic” history curriculum that erases critical analysis of the ways racism and slavery shaped this country’s laws, wealth, and cultural practices chillingly echoes early 20th-century racist practices. The OMB directive and Trump’s proclamation that anti-racist curriculum is unpatriotic mirror the charge that anti-Jim Crow editorials were sedition.
Past attempts to stifle the Black press and present efforts to block anti-racist curricula is not “cancel culture:” This is the executive branch of the U.S. government using its weight to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
We must never forget
We must amplify and highlight the work of historians who are willing to unearth and analyze the ugly parts of our past, lest we be doomed to repeat the horrific excesses of violence and oppression. We must never forget how easy it is for one group to control all the levers of government, and use that power to crush dissent, to stymie progress, and to warp core elements of the Constitution until they are unrecognizable. And we must protest as long and loud as we can when we see it happening in our own time.
Catherine Squires, Ph.D., is associate dean of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. She is the author of several books and articles on media, race, gender, and politics.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
Well said! These are dangerous times for all who support the free flow of information and teaching the whole truth of our history.
Amen, Ms. Squires, and Ms. Gagel as well. An old white guy who taught American and world history for 30 years in suburban St. Louis – an area even more overtly segregated than the Twin Cities – I often had to correct textbooks that left out uncomfortable realities, or failed to mention that policy ‘x,’ which seemed benign, in fact added an additional burden to people of color, or women, or both. It also seemed necessary to supplement, on occasion, some of what the kids’ textbooks were telling them with documents from other points of view, some of them non-white. Those were often eye-opening to white kids who’d never been out of their suburb except to go to Disneyland.
I would like to point out that is a logical fallacy to suggest that oppositon to the thrust of the 1619 project is necessarily racist. Many an historian has called it not historical, even anti-historical, and even the the world socialist website has called it unfit for the classroom.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/18/shell-d18.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/20/reed-d20.html
The key word in your response, Mr. Duncan, is “necessarily.” Indeed, technically, you are correct. In practical terms, however, most – not all, but most – of the opposition comes from sources not especially interested in broadening American history, as taught in most high school classrooms, to include the viewpoint of either / both Africans brought here as slaves, and their descendants, and the native population that was already here when Europeans arrived. In fact, I have college textbooks in American history that I purchased as part of my undergrad education that barely mention either natives or people of color – or women, for that matter.
It’s pretty easy to take a historical “correction” too far, so that’s something to pay attention to, but the notion that most American history, as usually taught, is all about white males is not – at least not based on my 30 classroom years and much curriculum development in the process – off the mark.
Ray,
It is true, much history as I was taught in grade school was propaganda for empire America, and mostly white America.
That said, the 1619 Project, and Ms Hannah-Jones suggests that everything about America is racism toward black people. When she says the work of the founders exluded 1/5 of the population, she wipes out the fact that the founding excluded 9/10 or more of Americans, including most poor white people. Her history hides what people went through for the 40hr week and 8hrs a day, the hatred toward millions of Scotch/Irish, the fight for womens suffrage, the American Indian Movement, and the general fight between the rich and all poor people.
The primary issue with the 1619 Project is the idea that the goal is not freedom for black people generally or lifting all black people and poor people generally out of poverty, but the opening up of the halls of power for a few black people, and more good paying jobs for those who protect the rich from the poor – that as long as the rich and poor are proportioned according to population, that is just.
Catherine,
I know your Uncle Joe, as an educator, from my days @ Swanton HS. I’ve always been a big fan, even more so in our present predicament. Most of my contemporaries view younger generations as the ruination of the USA. I see y’all as our only hope. Thank you for what you are doing and, please keep your feet on the floor. You are in the driver’s seat!
The USA has always been great until it was attacked 2016.
Bert Alleman