Oklahoma's lawmakers want to whitewash its history | The Hill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Tom Mockaitis, opinion contributor - 05/29/21 1:00 PM ET
by Tom Mockaitis, opinion contributor - 05/29/21 1:00 PM ET
istock
Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma has fired the latest salvo in the culture war. On May 7, Stitt signed a law effectively banning the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. Idaho has passed a similar law, and several other states have introduced such legislation. These laws have more to do with pandering to the Republican base than they do with teaching children. The Oklahoma Department of Education has received no complaints about anyone teaching critical race theory. Nonetheless, Oklahoma Republicans believe they can earn political capital defending a celebratory version of American history.
The Oklahoma law prohibits schools "teaching or training students to believe certain divisive concepts," including the idea that the United States is "fundamentally racist or sexist" and that individuals bear any responsibility for past actions committed by members of their race or sex. Most pernicious of all is a sweeping injunction against teaching any concept that makes any student "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex." Given the highly subjective nature of "distress," this clause could be used by school boards, administrators, and even parents to veto any content they dislike.
Critical race theory became the bete noire of the far-right when President Trump condemned it in September 2020, but anger over the concept had been growing since the New York Times published the 1619 Project, a series of thought-provoking essays addressing the importance of slavery and segregation in American history. If the Oklahoma law is any indication, opponents of critical race theory have little understanding of it.
Legal scholars coined the term "critical race theory" in the 1970's to address what they saw as the failure of civil rights legislation to achieve racial equality. The crux of the problem, these scholars believed, lay in defining racism solely as discriminatory acts perpetrated by individuals or groups instead of seeing it as a systemic problem embedded in institutions, policies and society itself. "What good was the Fair Housing Act," they asked, if economic inequality meant African Americans could not afford to buy homes?
Opponents of critical race theory acknowledge that discrimination happens but deny the existence of systemic racism. President Biden's April 29 address to Congress and Sen. Tim Scott's (R-S.C.) response illustrate these two perspectives. "We have a real chance to root out systemic racism that plagues America," Biden declared, acknowledging that racism is a structural problem. "I have experienced the pain of discrimination," Scott responded. "I know what it feels like to be pulled over for no reason, to be followed around a store while I'm shopping," but he added, "America is not a racist country." For Scott and his fellow Republicans, it seems that systemic racism does not exist.
Critical race theory does not unequivocally condemn the United States as a "racist country." According to Kimberle Crenshaw, one of its earliest proponents, the theory is "an approach to grappling with a history of white supremacy that rejects the belief that what's in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it." Note that Crenshaw says "an approach," not "the approach." It is one of many ways to study history. My own department requires that introductory courses teach students to "distinguish among multiple perspectives that shape interpretations of the past." Critical race theory does not discount all other historical perspectives, nor does it insist that American history become a litany of grievances compiled by marginalized groups. But it does insist that race is an important analytical category for interpreting events.
Contrary to the fear expressed in the Oklahoma law, critical race theory does not seek to make anyone feel guilty about their behavior or that of their ancestors. In fact, the theory deemphasizes individual actions in favor of examining structural issues. By focusing on the alleged distress "divisive concepts" might cause students, however, the law illustrates a tendency of conservatives to personalize discussions of race and gender. "I am not a racist or a misogynist," the argument goes, "I am not to blame." Acknowledging the link between past and present, not encouraging feelings of guilt, is the goal.
Both the timing of the Oklahoma law and its insistence that the present generation not be held responsible for the sins of its predecessors are poignant and ironic. May 31 will mark the centenary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, a violent uprising during which white mobs murdered as many as 300 African Americans and destroyed the Greenwood neighborhood, dubbed the "Black Wallstreet" because of its prosperity. Pressure to pay reparations to the descendants of the victims has been mounting. Until recently, most Americans were not even aware this atrocity had occurred. Eighty-three percent of Oklahomans did not hear of the massacre until they were adults, a compelling argument for why it must be included in history classes.
The most absurd aspect of the Oklahoma law is its insistence that educators do nothing to cause students "discomfort." During my 35-year teaching career, I have repeatedly told students that part of my job is to make them uncomfortable with their cherished assumptions, not to upset them, but to help them grow. Discussing race and gender in these fraught times makes everyone uncomfortable, but painful truths will not go away because we ignore them. Nor can inequality and injustices in the present day be overcome without studying their deep historic roots. Being unified is a good thing, but not if it comes at the expense of ignoring any part of our history, no matter how unpleasant. Only by facing our past — the good, the bad and the ugly — can we move together into a brighter future. Critical race theory is neither an exercise in white guilt nor an iconoclastic attack on American heritage. It is a call to listen to voices that have been silent, ignored and suppressed for too long.
Tom Mockaitis is professor of history and DePaul University and author of " Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat ."
Tags American history civil rights Critical race theory Donald Trump Education inclusivity Joe Biden Kevin Stitt Racism The 1619 Project Tim Scott Tulsa Massaacre.
Tags
Who is online
415 visitors
Done and done already!
Sad commentary on the state of Oklahoma.
I would like to see some evidence that teachers "make any student "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex." in any objective way. Critical race theory DOES NOT make any individual feel guilt or anguish unless they are already predisposed to do so.
Many whites do not want race discussed in schools. They will discuss slavery as long as white people are not blamed for it, which makes the subject irrelevant. The relevancy of slavery today is exactly because the legacy of slavery effects the implementation of racism today.
Now, instead of another round of stupid questions, I would like those who disagree to give their own viewpoints and not try to derail another thread with nonsense.
Unfortunately we have people here who cannot use their own thoughts and voice and totally rely on juvenile talking points or ask endless pointless questions.
If you have a question, answer it yourself and stop bothering the rest of us.
Who do we blame, John?
I know....How about we blame the black slave owners during the same time period....or do they just not count?
Did black slaveowners introduce race based slavery?
The idea that whites are exonerated for slavery because some blacks also owned slaves is idiotic.
No but they gladly participated in it.
"The idea that whites are exonerated for slavery because some blacks also owned slaves is idiotic. "
No, to defend black slaveholders for any wrongdoing because of the color of their, or their slaves, skin, is idiotic.
Are all whites guilty because some whites owned slaves? Why do you condemn white people generally instead of just those who owned slaves, unless you believe all whites including kids born 150 years after slavery ended are to blame for slavery?
A classic case of misplaced white guilt?
Seek and ye shall find.
On the internet you can find whatever you wish to.
Yes, I was encouraging him to do exactly that.
If that was the case, I would not have commented.
if you wish to assign some secret, hidden message in "Seek and ye shall find", well be my guest!
I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying your complaint is irrelevant to the subject of white racism.
As of 1860, 3,000 slaves were owned by Blacks. The other 3,950,760 were owned by whites. Some of those owned by blacks were family members who were bought from whites to save them. Slavery is always despicable but the attempt to equate black ownership to white ownership of slaves is akin to a german equating 1940s Concentration Camps to British Concentration Camps during the Boer War.
And, lest we forget Slave Rental:
Amazes me watching people twist themselves in order to defend....
What the end goal here is for them I have no idea...
Culture warriors don't take prisoners, they try to "own" them.
You mean like twisting that one race owning slaves was not as bead as another race owning them simply because of the race of the slaveholders who held less slaves.
THAT twisting?
What is your point? No one is twisting anything except you.
The talk of slavery comes up and all you can think of is....well some Black people did it too....
Sounds like a child that got disciplined and says...but Mom, Johnny did it....
Maybe you did not read 5.1.2. My point is well within.
"The talk of slavery comes up and all you can think of is....well some Black people did it too...."
It;s called a debate, exchange of ideas, difference of opinion, etc.
Just because YOU don't like what is posted is not my problem.
What I find disturbing is that you continue to defend blacks holding other blacks in slavery.
And now you are just making things up...
I am? Exactly what did I make up?
Show me one person here that has defended it.
If I had a mirror I would hand it to you, however, 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 is plenty of evidence.
If you don't see it, not my problem.
You are inventing things that are not there.
I havent seen you win a debate since you came on this website.
Because you always run away when you realize you no longer have an argument.
I dont answer all your ridiculous nonsense because you bore me.
If I want to argue with clueless, confused people I will go to a Trump rally.
Translation...
I can never counter your argument because my ass is handed to me on the very first word typed.
"If I want to argue with clueless, confused people I will go to a Trump rally. "
Probably would not hurt you to go. Your IQ is guaranteed to jump up several points.
So we see you are defending black slaveholders because they did not hold as many slaves as the white slaveholders.
I guess the black slaves that were held by black slaveholders felt Sooooooooooo much better because the master that was whipping them was the same color as them.
Weird defense.
Accuracy matters far more than which side of the fence one stands on ... hence why I wrote "Slavery is always despicable ..." Do you feel better that blacks owned slaves and does that absolve anyone? I have seen far too many comments over the years using the 'they did it too' argument to absolve the present from the past.
Your offense is weirder.
You could have just left it right there, but you continue to defend your position with "well, your side did it more than my side"
People of all colors owned others for the sake of slavery and profit.
That is wrong no matter how many of what race owned what of someone else.
So roughly 1 out of every 1300 hundred slaves was owned by a black. Some people here would probably call that equivalency.
Careful with words starting with equ, they're inflammatory.
Well, when it was members of your party that did the majority of the owning, I guess you do feel it was equal.
During the Civil War it is true that many southern racists were Democrats. Of course after they seceded they were nothing but white slaveowners.
As you have been told many times, the political parties ideological lineup is different today then it was in 1860. Only people who are clueless try to equate today's democrats with what was happening in 1860.
Congratulations.
And today it is mostly northern white racists that are democrat.
"Only people who are clueless try to equate today's democrats with what was happening in 1860. "
There is no difference in the equivalency between 19th century democrats and today's democrats.
19th century democrats owned slaves to do all the work on plantations.
Today;s democrats keep blacks on the democrat plantation by promising free public assistance (welfare), affirmative action where they get into college/jobs based solely on their skin color, and now are floating reparations for what their own ancestors did to slaves, but want everyone else to pay.
Absolutely no difference between the two.
Exactly, very few Northern racists were Dems in NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, SF…
those southern racist slave owners largely went right back to being Democrats after the war
And continued to be that way until the early 80s when they moved to northern states...like Illinois.