Why a Culture War Over Critical Race Theory? Consider the Pro-Slavery Congressional "Gag Rule"
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Why a Culture War Over Critical Race Theory? Consider the Pro-Slavery Congressional "Gag Rule"
Frank Palmeri is Professor of English at the University of Miami and author of State of Nature, Stages of Society: Enlightenment Conjectural History and Modern Social Discourse . Ted Wendelin is an Instructor at the University of Colorado, Denver.
What is Critical Race Theory and why are Republican governors and state legislators saying such terrible things about it? If you are among the 99% of Americans who had never heard of this theory before a month or two ago, you might be forgiven for believing that it poses a grave threat to the United States through the indoctrination of our schoolchildren. To clarify the reasons behind the sudden rise in attacks against this little-known theory, it can first help to consider an earlier campaign of silencing in US history—the effort to shut down any discussion of slavery in Congress through a gag-rule that lasted for almost a decade in the 1830s and 1840s.
In 1836, in response to a flood of anti-slavery petitions, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (Rule 21) that automatically tabled all petitions on slavery without a hearing. By doing so, they effectively prohibited even the discussion of slavery in Congress. The Senate, for its part, regularly voted not to consider such petitions at all. Southern Representatives and their Democratic allies in the North believed that any attention paid to slavery was divisive in that it heightened regional tensions and promoted slave rebellions. They argued that the drafters of the Constitution never intended for the subject of slavery to be discussed or debated in Congress.
At the beginning of each session after 1837, during discussion of the House rules, the ex-President and then Representative John Quincy Adams would attempt to read anti-slavery petitions he had received. Originally, only Whigs supported his efforts, but more Democrats joined him each session, so that the majority against Adams gradually decreased until the gag-rule was repealed at the beginning of the 1845 session.
Parallels between the gagging of anti-slavery petitions and the campaign to prohibit the teaching of Critical Race Theory are clear, if unnoticed before now. Like the Southern delegations who opposed discussion of slavery, opponents of Critical Race Theory believe that any discussion of persistent racial inequities in legal and other institutions is unacceptable because it is “divisive.” Ben Carson and Christie Noem (Gov. ND-R) have asserted that Critical Race Theory is “a deliberate means to sow division and cripple our nation from within.”
In fact the theory, based on an understanding that race is not biological but socially constructed, yet nevertheless immensely significant for everyday life, provides a way to investigate systemic racism and its consequences. It recognizes that racism did not exist solely in the past, that structures embedded in laws and customs persist in the present and permeate social institutions. These structures, intentionally or not, lead to the treatment of people of color as second-class citizens or less-than-full human beings.
As their central charge, critics frequently take the theory’s argument that in the US racism is “structural” or “systemic” as synonymous with saying that the United States is “systematically” or “inherently” racist. However, doing so conflates “systemic” with “systematic”: “systemic” practices are those that affect a complex whole of which they are a part; “systematic” practices are planned and methodical. To say an attitude or pattern is structural does not mean that it is unavoidable and unchangeable, that it cannot be addressed and its effects reduced through reforms. Indeed, a central tenet of the theory is that racism has produced its effects through specific, historical institutions, and that reduction of racial inequities can be accomplished, but only once the existence of such injustices is recognized.
Most lines of attack on Critical Race Theory depend in similar ways on misunderstandings or distortions. Whether subtle or not-so-subtle, unintentional or willful, their effect is the same: they misrepresent the theory. The opponents criticize what they call the theory’s “race essentialism”— their misconception of Critical Race Theory as saying that an individual, based on their race, is “inherently” racist or oppressive . Against the idea of structural or “inherent” racism, the critics assert that racism only expresses personal choices and actions. But we need not accept their assumption that racism must be either structural or personal; both can surely exist at the same time.
Nor do we need to agree with the opponents that the theory considers all white people “inherently privileged” because of their race. In the 1930s, Social Security benefits were denied to domestic workers, the right to organize a union was withheld from propertyless farmworkers, and federally funded mortgages were denied to people of color generally through the practice of “redlining.” The vote was denied to many people of color via poll taxes and other legal obstacles. Recognizing this pattern is not the same as saying that white workers, voters , and mortgage holders are “inherently privileged.” Yet recognizing such a pattern does mean that some of the inequalities and disadvantages under which people of color have labored as a result of discriminatory legislation can be addressed through reformative legislation.
When State Senator Brian Kelsey of Tennessee supported a ban on teaching Critical Race Theory in public schools, he stated that the theory teaches “that the rule of law does not exist and is instead a series of power struggles among racial groups.” However, to acknowledge that laws have been shaped by social structures and cultural assumptions of a particular time does not mean that the rule of law does not exist. Rather, it poses a challenge for us to root out the racist patterns and practices that have been invisibly at work in the idea of “equality under the law.”
Finally, the detractors charge teachers with “imposing” or “forcing” the theory on their students. But these critics are not in fact calling for independence of thought. Rather, their charge seeks to suppress thought that questions historic and continuing inequities and inequalities, just as, almost two hundred years ago, representatives of Southern slave-owners and their Northern sympathizers imposed a gag-rule on their anti-slavery Congressional colleagues.
It is instructive that opponents of Critical Race Theory deny what the theory does not assert—that each white person is inherently, essentially racist, and that the institutions of American society are fundamentally, unchangeably racist . It may be easier to legislate these denials and to gag educators than to acknowledge what the theory does assert, and then work to make the difficult changes that are called for in the legal and the educational systems of our country. By denying that racism is entrenched and unyielding, they render it more entrenched and more resistant to attempts to address its consequences.
Tags
Who is online
413 visitors
Great article. It's been tiring reading these other seeds that whine and complain about CRT when they obviously have no clue what they are talking about and are complaining about and attacking some fantasy straw man of their own making.
The detractors of CRT need to stop lying about the things the theory does not assert or trying to make their own version of it so they can demonize it and instead actually learn what it is. Perhaps then we can have a constructive debate, but for some I'm sure that is too much to ask.
Excellent article and a bit of authentic US history.
CRT sure has some in an uproar, deceive and deflect is their motto.
"Southern Representatives and their Democratic allies in the North believed that any attention paid to slavery was divisive in that it heightened regional tensions and promoted slave rebellions."
That statement reveals the intent and purpose of Critical Race Theory. Those southern representatives were Democrats. Southern and northern Democrats imposed the gag order of Rule 21. The whole point of Critical Race Theory is to rewrite the history of the Democratic Party; to exonerate Democrats for being the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation.
Critical Race Theory doesn't present history honestly. CRT imparts a partisan twist to history that places guilt on everyone EXCEPT those primarily responsible for that history. The Democratic Party has stood on the wrong side of the racial history of the United States. History condemns the Democratic Party so it's necessary to rewrite that history.
Critical Race Theory attempts to shift the blame onto the Republican Party. But the Republican Party didn't exist before 1854. The Republican Party was founded in the northern states to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the expansion of chattel slavery. There has never been any Republican Presidents that held slaves while in office. No Republican representative used their political office to enrich themselves through chattel slavery.
As the seed article clearly tells us, vocal demands for the end of chattel slavery were being made from the beginning of the United States. The Democratic Party abused its political power to silence those demands. The Democratic Party abused its political power to expand chattel slavery into new territories and weaken anti-slavery state and Federal laws. The Democratic Party packed the courts to protect chattel slavery. The Democratic Party used the Klu Klux Klan to regain political power in the south and in the north. The Democratic Party used racial divisions and blatant bigotry to impose Jim Crow and segregation not only on the south but onto Federal institutions as well.
Critical Race Theory carefully (and dishonestly) glosses over the history of the Democratic Party. Partisan activists want to teach our children about 1619 but avoid 1829 when the Democratic Party began its reign of racial terror. And the Democratic Party is gagging the history of abolition and civil rights in the United States just as they did in 1836 with Rule 21. Democrats want that history silenced because the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of that history.
Pretending that the two parties havent changed ideologies since the 1850's is a loser.
Civil rights in the United States did not begin in 1964. Just because Democrats resisted civil rights until 1964 doesn't justify ignoring the history prior to 1964.
What do you know about the history of abolition and civil rights in the United States? The underground railroad? Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? That's the history taught to our children. Democrats have actively and deliberately suppressed the true history of abolition and civil rights in the United States. That's because the Democratic Party has consistently been on the wrong side of that history.
The Solid South was a Democratic stronghold for 100 years following the Civil War. The Solid South was Democrats first blue wall. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in the Democratic state of Texas. Jimmy Carter carried the south in 1976 as did Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Today's Democratic Party is still trying to rebuild the Solid South.
It's not white privilege; it's Democrat privilege. Democrats claim the privilege of writing history that ignores the role of the Democratic Party in that history. The Democratic Party is still the party of slavery; slavery is still at the core of Democratic politics. The Democratic Party is still the party of racism; racism is at the core of Democratic politics. Democrats can't point to their support for civil rights because true history tells a different story. The Democratic Party regained power in the reconstructed south by pandering and coercing the Black population; just as the Democratic Party is doing today. The Democratic Party is using racial distinctions to obtain and retain power; just as the Democratic Party has done throughout the party's history.
The pivotal year in the history of abolition and civil rights in the United States is 1829. That's when the Democratic Party was founded by a slave owner with one of the largest holdings of slaves in the country. And that history of abolition and civil rights is one of opposition by the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party began in 1829; not 1964. And the Democratic Party is still trying to dictate attitudes on race just as the Democratic Party has since its founding. The Democratic Party forced its views concerning race onto the white population from the founding of the party and the Democratic Party is still forcing its views concerning race onto the white population. Throughout its history, the Democratic Party has used race as a tool to obtain power over the white population; nothing has changed about the Democratic Party.
I think the most charitable way to describe your opinions about this is to say they are eccentric.
It wasnt being Democratic that made those particular people racist and in favor of slavery, it is because they were from the south.
Nah, I think he's saying that because they were racist and in favor of slavery is why they were Democrats.
Being in favor of slavery is why those particular people were Democrats. The Democratic Party was founded to protect and expand the institution of chattel slavery. The Democratic Party originated in the south. How do we know? Because chattel slavery had been prohibited north of the Ohio. That's part of the history of abolition and civil rights that Democrats don't want our children to learn.
Trying to rewrite history to push a false narrative that the Democratic Party came before slavery is dishonest. Slavery is why we have a Democratic Party today. And racism and slavery are still at the core of today's Democratic Party politics.
Actually, that information is not good for your story.
Why? Because money and wealth in the Democrat's hands is used to control government and impose social attitudes onto the white population?
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read, and conservatives post some real whoppers around here.
Then why would they point out that it was "Southern Representatives and their Democratic allies" if they're attempting to rewrite history? CRT is not rewriting any history, it's simply examining society and our laws and outcomes specifically for those who have been marginalized and discriminated against in the past. And why should progressive liberal Democrats of today try and exonerate conservative Southern Democrats from half a century ago? The two couldn't be more ideologically opposed.
Just more nonsensical bullshit without a lick of evidence. It's that kind of bullshit rhetoric that Republicans are desperate to push because they know it's their own party that has embraced those conservatives in the South who were angered with the Democratic party passing the civil rights act, passing the voting rights act and embracing black Americans into their party and supporting them as elected officials in Congress, the Senate, as President and Vice President. Basically what Republicans are saying when they claim the Democratic party of today is still the party of slavery is that the 85% of black Americans who support the Democratic party and vote Democratic must be too stupid to know what's good for them.
The conservative Democratic party of the South that claimed to be God fearing Christian conservatives, erected the confederate monuments, flew confederate flags, created Jim Crow laws, supported slavery, created the KKK, they have a lot of blood on their hands and should be remembered and held responsible for it, but it's blatantly obvious today that the only thing shared between those bigots and the progressive liberal Democratic party of today is the word "Democrat" in their party name. Anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their own ass can easily see which party today actually has more in common with the conservative Southern Democrats of half a century ago. There's only one party today whose members claim to be God fearing Christian conservatives, desperately defend confederate monuments from removal, fly confederate flags at their rallies and protests, have their Presidential candidates supported by the KKK and virtually every white supremacist supporting they and their conservative ideology, and it's certainly not liberal Democrats who those conservatives despise.
Sure, you can keep throwing around the word "Democratic" like a shit ball you're hoping sticks, but none of that has to do with CRT and the studies being done today and the vestiges of systemic racism that continue to plague our society. The ones telling others to just close their eyes to the realities of today are conservative Republicans desperate to hide their own complicity.
I agree with everything you said and wish I said it myself, but I don't to want to spend the necessary time responding to his nonsense.
The parties began to change during the FDR era, but really took on new ideologies after world war 2. The Democrats became more liberal (Adlai Stevenson) and the Republicans became more conservative (Richard Nixon, and to a lesser extent Eisenhower). In 1848 a group of conservative Democrats broke away and formed the Dixiecrats which fielded a states rights candidate in order to defend racial segregation from the stirrings toward equality such as Truman's desegregation of the military. Southern Democrats still held a lot of power, but the Party was put on a course to change into what it has become in the modern sense. The Republicans grew more conservative after world war two culminating with the rise of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that those 'Southern Representatives' were Democrats? Democrats were not allies to Southern Representatives; Southern Representatives were Democrats too. They were all in the same political party, advocating the same political ideology, and pursuing the same political goals. Why should Democrats have the privilege of glossing over the history of the Democratic Party and avoid confronting that past? Those attempts to protect the Democratic Party from its own past makes the 1619 project nothing more than gas-lighting.
Critical Race Theory, as a pop-culture phenomena, isn't about the Black population. CRT is all about the white population. CRT is being used as a forum for telling a highly selective, distorted history of the white population. And that distortion includes hiding the role of the Democratic Party in perpetuating slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. That's not white privilege; that's Democrat privilege.
The Black population has been prominent in the Democratic Party since 1829. Democratic politics have been about race from the beginning of the party. The Democratic Party has attempted to impose their ideological attitudes concerning the Black population onto the white population from the beginning of the party. Democrats have imposed their racial attitudes onto the white population about how the Black population fits into society, how the white population should think about the Black population, and how the white population should treat the Black population since 1829.
And those reminders of the Democratic Party's role in slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation have been conveniently removed.
The Democratic Party used 'voters rights' as a way to extend slavery into new territories. The Democratic Party used 'voters rights' as a way to regain political power in the south during reconstruction. The Democratic Party used pandering, persuasion, and coercion to convince the freed slave population of the south to return Democrats to power. Democrats could not regain political power and control in the south without Black votes since there were as many Blacks as whites in the south.
When the Klu Klux Klan was created there were freed slaves under those white hoods, too. The first KKK was created to coerce the Black population to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. The first KKK was created to intimidate and drive out the Republican Party and return political power to the Democratic Party. It worked. The Solid South was controlled by the Democratic Party for the next 100 years.
Yes, we can see which political party has more in common with those antebellum Southern Democrats. One of today's political parties still uses the politics of race to retain political power and impose racial attitudes onto the white population. The Black population is as prominent in that party's politics as when the party was founded. One of today's political parties still claims that no-holds-barred elections is about protecting 'voters rights'. One of today's political parties attempts to control the courts to impose its political ideology onto the country. One of today's political parties still distorts the Census to gain Congressional seats.
The Democratic Party has changed very little since 1829.
That is the biggest load of shit I have read in a long time.
We all know what party the racist people of today reside.
The whole last paragraph you wrote is nothing but distortion, probably spoon fed to you by right wing media.
Obviously the year should have been 1948
We all know what happened. I get sick of the meme that because the racists of yesteryear once belonged to a party that they still reside there.
Any rational, actually thinking person knows the truth and where they reside in this day and age.
It is all a smokescreen to hide their own.
The way Nerm puts it it sounds like a conspiracy. I guess it helps conservatives believe the fantasy that their ideology has not supported racism over the years.
How many times does this have to be said before NermL and his compatriots finally get it?
I think we should be allowed to flag them for telling an untruth any time one of them lies about the Democratic Party and today it is still the party of slavery.
They all know it's not true but they persist
I'm going to start flagging every person who continues to spout the lie
That's like asking how long it will take for Donald Trump to admit he lost the election. It's never going to happen because it doesn't fit the bullshit narrative they're trying desperately to sell. The only ones buying it are the rest of the desperate bigots who will gobble up anything that deflects or distracts from the reality of their deep seated prejudice. Being a conservative Southern Democrat used to be their favorite pastime, now its become blaming liberal Democrats for all the Southern Democrat past and pretending no one notices they changed parties.