In grammar school, I learned a rather skewed version of American history.
Forget the Founding Fathers, or most of them, anyway. Other than Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence.
No, the real founding fathers were Catholic explorers, like Pere Marquette, the Jesuit missionary who paddled his canoe around the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, discovering all sorts of discoveries. And don't get me started on Junipero Serra, the great Franciscan missionary who when he wasn't fulfilling his personal quest to take part in the Inquisition, was plodding along the Camino Real establishing Catholic mission churches. (Not that we learned anything about the Inquisition thang.)
As an unenlightened public school learner, you may have been led to believe that John Paul Jones was the Father of the United States Navy. Tut, tut, tuttedy-tut tut. The one true founder was Ireland's own John Barry.
And whoever it is from the American Expeditionary Forces that you think won the First World War, we all know it was Fighting Father Duffy and the Fighting 69th, a NYC regimen made up largely of first and second-gen Irishmen. Faugh a Ballagh!
Anyway, I know all about learning a somewhat off version of American history, and it seems like the current regime is hell bent on rewriting our history so that it tells a pretty whitewashed version.
It was during Trump I that the witchhunts began, with a fatwa on any history that shone an even slightly unfavorable light on our past. In Florida, there was an especially stupid manifestation when a book on Rosa Parks was proposed that didn't mention why it was the Rosa Parks wanted to take a seat on the front of the bus. Wouldn't want innocent little white kiddos to know that there was a time when Black folks had to move to the rear of the bus, let alone try to take a drink from the whites-only water fountain or pee in a whites-only urinal. Fortunately, the fractured version of the Rosa Parks' story turned out to be too far gone for even Florida to accept.
But, increasingly, any mentions of things in our history that ain't so grand and glorious are being excised. Can't say we treated Indigenous peoples ruthlessly. Our destiny was manifest, baby.
Can't say slavery was all bad. After all, there were kind, benevolent massas who considered Black folks part of the family, teaching them useful skills.
Can't say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Nope: states rights, with those poor, pure, noble Southern states so put upon and trampled. No asking just why the Lost Cause shouldn't have been a lost cause.
No Tulsa. No Jim Crow. No lynchings.
No racial immigration quotas. No imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Recently, the Smithsonian removed the parts of an exhibit on impeachment that mentioned Trump. (Last I read, the mentions had been restored.) But for how long?
Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that:
The White House plans to conduct a far-reaching review of Smithsonian museum exhibitions, materials and operations ahead of America’s 250th anniversary to ensure the museums align with President Trump’s interpretation of American history. (Source: WSJ)Given that Trump believes that he should be on Mount Rushmore and win the Nobel Peace Prize, and that the treatment he has received is even worse than what Abraham Lincoln suffered, one can only imagine just what might "align with President Trump's interpretation of American history."
Trump wants to "restore truth and sanity to American history," but given his squishy relationship with both truth and sanity, it's hard to see how that's going to happen.
The White House claims it wants to make sure that the Smithsonian museums reflect the "unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story."
“This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the president’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,” the letter [from the WH to the Smithsonian] states. (Source: NY Times)
Somehow, I don't think this is going to restore much of my "confidence in our shared cultural institutions." (I was going to write au contraire, but that sure wouldn't be patriotic, so on the contrary.)
“This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,” [Trump Special Assistant Lindsey] Halligan said in a statement. “The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.”
There is, of course, more. Because with the current regime, there is always more.
In July, the Trump administration sent a directive to the National Park Service asking the parks to submit for review anything that might not jibe with what Trump thinks Trump's impulses dictate.
So the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is asking whether it's okay to talk about "how climate change is causing sea levels to rise."
The Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in Florida wonders whether they can retain an informational panel that has:
...language referring referring to tribes having choice of extinction or assimilation. Language of U.S. Government giving the ‘choice’ of extinction could be considered negative towards the United States. (Source: NY Times)
For the Stones River National Battlefield in Tennessee it's a question of whether "text [that] addresses slavery as the primary cause of the American Civil War" should stand.
Can the Cane River Creole National Historical Park in Louisiana keep up signage in an exhibit on slaves who were unsuccessful in their attempts to escape that "identified the enslavers by name and mentioned that returned slaves were publicly whipped."
“The national parks were established to tell the American story, and we shouldn’t just tell all the things that make us look wonderful,” said Dan Wenk, a former superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. “We have things in our history that we are not proud of anymore.”
I'm with Dan Wenk. But there is a counterpoint from Trump-landia:
Elizabeth Peace, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, the parent agency of the Park Service, said the Trump administration’s move “is not about rewriting the past.”
“Interpretive materials that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of U.S. history or historical figures, without acknowledging broader context or national progress, can unintentionally distort understanding rather than enrich it,” Ms. Peace said in a statement. “Our goal is to foster honest, respectful storytelling that educates visitors while honoring the complexity of our nation’s shared journey.”
Somehow, I'm thinking that if Ms. Peace truly wants "to foster honest, respectful storytelling that educates visitors while honoring the complexity of our nation’s shared journey," she won't be long for the Trump administration.
We'll see where this purge review of National Parks Service information ends up. I'm not optimistic.
Especially after the August situation with respect to tinkering with the government website on the Constitution.
Over the past month, portions of Section 8 and all of Sections 9 and 10 were removed from Article I of the Constitution on the U.S. government’s official website. The changes to sections addressing congressional powers, states’ rights, and due process sparked concern amid threats from the Trump administration to suspend habeas corpus. (Source: ComicSands)
The Library of Congress said that it was a coding error, and restored the missing pieces. "Coding error" or trial balloon to see what they could get away with? Hmmmmm.
I am a big believer that there is an awful lot of American history to be proud of.
However flawed they may have been as people - and aren't we all - the Founding Fathers were in many ways exceptionally brilliant to base a country on fundamental rights, not royal inheritance or religious decree. (Sure wish they could have done a better job on the Electoral College business. Was it worth it to keep the slave states part of the package?)
The assimilation of so many immigrants fleeing poverty and/or war, and/or persectuion into this country - back in the day when we believed that immigrants were worthy - was a tremendous achievement. Didn't matter where you came from, you could come here and become an American. As did my Irish great-grandparents, and my German grandparents. (And my German mother who came through Ellis Island as a toddler.) Sure, welcoming immigrants largely applied to yesteryear's largely white European stock. Still, the Statue of Liberty never fails to make me tear up.
We have been an exceptional country in terms of innovation, scientific achievement, arts and culture...The list is long and admirable.
We are a country of immense (and immensely diverse) beauty.
We have a lot of hokey myths, andI'm fine with believing (or not) that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree and could not tell a lie.
But we can have all of the above and still acknowledge our flaws.
We'll see if Trump lets us.
No comments:
Post a Comment