Seeking Out The Gray Area

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was lauded by some as the culmination of centuries of struggle by African Americans to achieve full equality. Obama stated in his farewell speech that after his election, “there was talk of a post-racial America” and that “such a vision, however well-intended, was never realistic” as “race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society.” Unfortunately, all one has to do is look at Ferguson after the Micahel Brown shooting and dozens of cities across the United States in the wake of George Floyd’s murder to know just how right Obama was. It shouldn’t be surprising then that as part of the culture wars raging in the United States, one of the most important fronts is in education;  what should and shouldn’t be a part of the history curriculum, how race and racism is taught in schools, and whether teachers are “indoctrinating” students. 

And to a degree this makes sense. Despite a view that some might have that history is simply the gathering of names and dates, the writing, teaching, and study of history is inherently subjective. It is never neutral. Historians, biased by their own perspectives and experiences and influenced by the milieu in which they are working, determine which facts to gather and how to interpret them, what sources to gather those facts from, which facts to present and which to ignore, what order they are presented in, what context is provided when they are presented, and which counter-arguments may or may not be valid to consider. Therefore, the facts never speak for themselves. Under the best of circumstances the study of history is complex. Today, educators are at the center of a perfect storm- a world where globalization increasingly creates economic winners and losers, a society going through a massive demographic shift where white people will become a minority by 2050, and a political landscape where social media funnels the national dialogue into echo-chambers of outrage and every action, policy, and statement from one side is demonized by the other. Students are learning and teachers are teaching in an increasingly volatile landscape.

Recent attempts by school boards and state legislatures to ban the teaching of CRT and resources such as The 1619 Project are demonstrative of how schools are now on the front lines of the culture wars. For a long time- too long I would argue, the dominant narratives of American history tended to celebrate our achievements more than criticizing our failures. To borrow the language of a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, historians traditionally placed a greater emphasis on “1776” (the year the United States declared independence from Great Britain) than “1619” (the year slaves first landed in North America) as the starting point to our national story. The 1619 Project attempted to counter the dominant racial narrative of American history; that despite the sin of slavery our revolution was just, our constitution a protector of freedom and liberty, and the horrible stain of slavery was finally washed away by Reconstruction and the African American civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s. The 1619 Project places slavery at the center of the American story. Should it be? I’m not sure. Should it be more central to the American story than previous versions of our history? Undoubtedly. Whose vision of American history is correct? Do we teach “1619” or “1776?” 

Perhaps no historian has done more to counter traditional narratives of American history than Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, first published in 1980. Zinn described his approach to history: “Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, and so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can ‘see’ history from the standpoint of others.” Therefore, Zinn’s great contribution to history was his ability to use multiple lenses to triangulate the truth, to whatever degree truth can be triangulated. Zinn did not need to look through the lens of rich powerful white men, as their truth was history up to that point. 

While Zinn was a welcome counterbalance to traditional, even jingoistic narratives of American History, is it possible that the pendulum has swung too far in Zinn’s direction? Have we become overly critical of American history? Do we stand to lose something if history is ONLY looked at through the lens of identity, or race? Or class? Or gender? What dangers do we face if instead of having competing narratives of the American story, we become so atomized that we have no narrative at all? 

Increasingly in history education, as well as in our national political discourse, there has been an unwillingness (or inability) by some to entertain any ideas that run contrary to their  beliefs. Pluralism is out. Debates in classrooms have become more contentious and therefore less frequent due to self-censorship or teachers steering clear of issues that might land them in hot water. Political opponents have become enemies to be vanquished. We are not listening to each other anymore. This is a major problem, as being closed-minded is antithetical to being a good student and a good citizen.  

My “call to action” is for teachers and students to always try and put themselves in someone else’s shoes and look at the world through their eyes, to seek genuine understanding of their position, even if for no other reason than to validate the logic of their own argument (as John Stuart Mill once said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”). 

No one thinks they are the bad guy, right? We are often the hero of our own story. 

We must reject black and white, binary, simplistic arguments or interpretations and instead constantly seek to live in the middle ground, the gray area in between. Always ask: What might the other guy say? What information do I not have that might be relevant? How would I  feel if this happened to me? How would I respond to my own argument? What lens am I not looking through that can help paint a more complete picture?

History is chock full of opportunities to seek nuance and alternate narratives, to use different lenses to look at a problem or event.  Was WWII a righteous war where the U.S. led the free world against tyranny and facism? Or was this really a competition for empire and have we forgotten that the “good guys” collectively held over 600,000,000 people in colonial bondage? Are men like Carnegie and Rockefeller “Robber Barons,” who amassed obscene amounts of wealth by exploiting cheap labor and buying off politicians, or are they “Captains of Industry” who worked extremely hard, took enormous amounts of personal and financial risk, and earned their wealth through innovation and invention? Is Thomas Jefferson a hero for his contributions to the Enlightenment, or a hypocrite who deserves to be canceled?

To go further, do Democrats like murdering babies? Do Republicans hate poor people? Or is it more complicated than that? If you find yourself full of righteous indignation in an argument, how likely is it that the other person feels just as strongly they are in the right? We must remember history and politics should be complicated because human beings are complicated. Actively seeking out the nuance and complexity in the “gray area” will make you a better writer, thinker, scholar, and person. So should we teach 1619 or 1776? The answer is “yes.”