Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. Without context all discussion is meaningless.
I commonly teach students that not only did Columbus not discover America, the Vikings may have had competition as well. Some people want to take this back to the Phoenicians, though I think that it excessive. It is plausible, but unlikely and AFAIK unprovable. As for me, there is a case to be made for the Polynesians making it to South America and the possibility, based on some admittedly tenuous evidence, that Japanese sailors also made the voyage. I also get a kick out of mentioning the plausibility that Zheng He made the voyage, but that needs WAY more proof. So yes, I absolutely do these things and more.
One of my issues with CRT is that it is based on some very poorly thought out ideas. For example, the teaching of the Enlightenment is being pushed aside. It is too western, too European, and too white. But in my classes I provide context. For example, we always read Denis Diderot’s* eloquent attack on the slave trade in the Encyclopedie in the 18th century. But CRT wants to do away with this or, at the least, minimize it. So the people who benefitted most from the end of slavery should not have to learn why? That would actively sabotage their understanding of history. After all, it isn’t like it was a foregone conclusion slavery would end. In fact, with chocolate slavery and things of that nature we are seeing slavery rise again. So it is an easy argument to make that people like Diderot helped to found a movement that we have benefitted from greatly and their actions had just as much to do with, say, Afro-American history as they do with European and American history.
The point you make about Tulsa is an important one, but CRT isn’t needed to address this. (to be fair, I don’t usually cover Tulsa either, I dwell more on the issues of the Deep South, segregation, etc., but that is another matter and your point stands) You need to address the curriculum on the local level and reform it. The fact that it hasn’t been done is a disservice, but it would need more context. For example, one CRT supporter writes about how unjust it is that we do not cover how Afro-Americans have been treated by the housing authorities after WWII. True, I don’t cover that either. Then again I also tend not to cover how veterans of all stripes have been shafted again and again by the US Govt. (if you’d like I can elaborate). But CRT advocates highlight the issue of minorities and that makes it sound like only their issues have been ignored When there are many subjects that get shorted. Sometimes this is simply due to time, other times there are more malicious reasons. In the Tulsa case I have no trouble believing that you’re right and that needs to be rectified. But in a general survey of American history I don’t have time to deal with every grievance. If I did so fairly it would be a class on oppression, not US History (some will argue that is synonymous).
Thanks for the response Homer and I apologize for being so verbose. It is a failing of mine.
-ProfAaron
As for the other responders, I will try to write more for some of you as there are some good points. I do notice a surfeit of ad hominem attacks. Attack my veracity if you’d like, attack the veracity of the National Review (I don’t really care since I have no dog in that fight), but at least make a cogent argument. But these replies are exactly what has pushed me away. For example, the National Review list some of you deride is just that, a list. It provides BOTH pro- and anti-CRT views, albeit with an anti-CRT lean, just as the NYT does the opposite. But a knee jerk rejection of a source—a source that is merely citing other sources you’re not familiar with without looking at it—is a reaction of pure unadulterated ignorance. Still, if you think you know so much then please make your argument. If your case is that good surely you will want to showcase it…. Right?
———————————
*—for some of those with your snide replies, here is what Diderot says about slavery. Now read this and tell me why this should NOT be taught to young African-Americans?:
”Slave trade is the purchase of Negroes made by Europeans on the coasts of Africa, who then employ these unfortunate men as slaves in their colonies. This purchase of Negroes to reduce them into slavery
→ is a negotiation that violates all religion, morals, natural law, and human rights.
According to an Englishman of today, who is full of enlightenment and humanity, the Negroes did not become slaves by any right of war; nor did they voluntarily sacrifice themselves to
← slavery
→ . Therefore, their children are not born as slaves. Everyone knows that Negroes are being purchased from their princes, who believe they have the right to own their freedom. Everybody is also aware that merchants transport these Negroes as if they were merchandise, either to their colonies or to America, where they are put on display to be sold.
If a trade of this kind can be justified by a moral principle, then there is absolutely no crime, however atrocious, that cannot be legitimized. Kings, princes, and magistrates are not owners of their subjects; therefore they are not entitled to their subjects’ freedom, nor do they have the right to sell anyone into
← slavery
→ .
Moreover, nobody has the right to buy these subjects or to call himself their master. Men and their freedom are not objects of commerce; they can be neither sold, nor purchased, nor bought at any price. Thus, a man must blame only himself if his slave escapes. He paid money for illicit merchandise, even though all laws of humanity and equity forbid him to do so.
Thus, each of those unfortunates who are merely considered slaves, has the right to be declared free since he never lost his freedom and never could. Furthermore, neither his prince, nor his father, nor anybody else in the world has the ability to own this freedom. Accordingly, the purchase of it is worthless: this Negro does not, nor could he ever, deprive himself of his natural right. He carries it everywhere, and can demand that he be allowed to enjoy it wherever he goes. It is thus an obvious inhumanity that, in the free country to which the Negro is transported, judges do not immediately decide to liberate him by declaring that he is free, as he is the judges’ fellow man and has a soul like theirs.
There are some authors who set themselves up as political legal experts and who boldly say that questions relating to a society’s condition must be decided by its national laws. They also argue that when a man is denoted a slave in America, he must remain a slave when he is transported to Europe. However, this results in deciding the rights of humanity by despicable civil laws, as Cicero said. Must not the magistrates of a nation, out of consideration for another nation, have any regard for their own species? Is it their deference to a law, which obliges them to nothing, that forces them to trample on the Law of Nature, which obligates all men in all times and places? Is there any law that is as necessary as the external laws of equity? Can one raise the question of whether a judge is more obligated to observe them, than to respect the arbitrary and inhumane customs of colonies?
One might say that these colonies would be quickly ruined if the
← slavery
→ of Negroes were abolished. If this is true, must we then presume that the Negro population must be horribly wronged for us to enrich ourselves, or provide for our luxury? It is true that robbers’ purses would be empty if stealing were put to an end: but do men have the right to enrich themselves in such cruel and criminal ways in the first place? What gives a bandit the right to steal from passer-bys? Who is permitted to become wealthy by robbing his fellow men of their happiness? Is it legitimate to strip the human species of its most sacred rights, only to satisfy one’s own greed, vanity, or particular passions? No...European colonies should be destroyed rather than create so many unfortunates!
However, I do not believe that the abolition of
← slavery would ruin the European colonies. Their commerce would temporarily suffer: I wish for this. Since the outcome is always affected by new situations, one could not immediately follow another system. However, many other advantages would result from this abolition.
It is this trade of Negroes, it is the usage of servitude, which prevented America from being populated as promptly that it could have. If one frees the Negroes, in a few generations this vast and fertile country will have an infinite number of inhabitants. The arts and talents will flourish there, and instead of being barely populated by savages and ferocious beasts, America will be populated by industrious men only. It is freedom, it is also industry that will be the real sources of abundance. As long as a population conserves this industry and this freedom, there will be nothing to fear. Industry, just out of necessity, is ingenious and inventive. It finds a thousand different ways to procure riches, and if one of these channels of opulence gets blocked, a hundred others immediately open.
Sensitive and generous souls would undoubtedly applaud these reasons in the name of humanity, but the avarice and greed that dominate the earth, will always refuse to listen to them.”