Deceptive Narratives of History

      First Free-Writing Reflection Essay in response to deceptive narratives of history

As I reflect about current issues related to policies, social work or services, writing about the concept of history told in a deceptive one-sided narrative is weighing heavily on my heart and for that very reason I will begin to unpack just why this is so. To do this I am going to begin to explore what I have learned about the process of hero making by sourcing the book “White Rage” by Carol Anderson and the text, “Lies my teacher told me; Everything American History textbook got wrong,” “by Loewen James. 

Firstly, the text, “Lies my teacher told me; Everything American History textbook got wrong,” highlights how the process of hero making often highlights a more simplistic approach, which is often questionable and leads to misinformation. Because it illustrates heroes in American History in a way that does not present the whole context of that person or unit of analysis. But instead depicts half narrative or whitewashed version.  (James). An example of this was seen in the text, but I will choose my own example from the text, White Rage about former U.S President, Abraham Lincoln outlined below.

The American history made out Abraham Lincoln as a hero, because he freed the slaves. But what they failed to do was tell the whole story about how he felt about slaves, or even his objectives or intentions behind freeing the enslaved. (Anderson). This Creates a narrative that is one sided, thus leading to misinformation, which is seen as the full context of Abraham Lincoln, a supposedly hero was not told and lead to the misinformation that the injustice of African American ended when the 13 Amendment was passed.

Overall, the specific instances of history told in a deceptive one-sided narrative bothers me not only because of the misinformation it gives as I have illustrated. But also, because it alters effective change for it prevents people from learning from passed mistakes, finding effective solutions and clearing up misconceptions of prejudice, racism, stereotypes and other biases that are still inherently amongst us today. Therefore, current laws or debates about things such as banning books that speak on issues race, weighs heavily on my heart because it furthers the agenda of deceptive narrative, which is disruptive.

Truth is important, isn't it?  But truth is complex.  Every moment has so many aspects and dimensions.  In any event, or in any person’s life, we can only perceive or consier a tiny fraction of the full range of facts.  Narratives about history or another person are always highly selective.  The question we must answer is what motivates our selection of the facts?  Are we trying to give an honest and fair and accurate account of an event or person?  Are we trying to inspire people?  Are we trying to provide a cautionary warning?  I we sharing a narrative to help readers form a shared cultural identity with us?  Are we using facts selectively to present a particular viewpoint of the world and reality?  How can we judge which approach is best in creating “good” narratives or “false” narratives.

A core problem facing those of us alive today is the way some people are undermining the idea of truth or facts.  We have people engaged in a sort of post-truth political entrepreneurship.  These are people who will not even bother to create a narrative that is false or misleading—they just spew so many words that are untrue, and do so constantly, that they create confusion and disengagement.  They create an impression that no one can know what is really going on, so it’s better to let the experts figure things out, or to place our trust in people who have the vibes that we like. 

It seems to me that traditions of teaching history in the USA were shaped by the ideas that a purpose of education is to inspire people and make them patriotic and loyal to the USA, and also the belief that teaching people about the heroism or admirable qualities of historical figures would enhance patriotism and civic engagement and idealism.  No doubt there would have been many motives.  Ours is a nation of great diversity, and we want to hold together as a nation dedicated to a few basic principles, so perhaps people who created historical narratives were trying to help people get a common ideology or set of values so that we could enjoy national social cohesion and a values-based national unity.  Or, perhaps some of the textbook writers and leaders of education had more sinister motives, such as getting working classes and common people to accept a system that did not always treat people fairly.

In the case of Abraham Lincoln, consider the way our National Park System examines Lincoln and his relationship with Frederick Douglass.  Sometimes official history is capable of nuance and a recognition that people are complex, with noble qualities and admirable aspects mixed in with character flaws and personal limitations.  Sometimes people put down Lincoln by finding some passage from some speech or letter or debate, and then claiming “this is what he believed”.  This can be extremely misleading, because Lincoln grew during his life, and his views and opinions generally improved. In his last public address he mentioned that Blacks (at least ones who had served in the Union army, at a minimum) would probably need to receive a right to vote.  The conspirators (or at least John Wilkes Booth) were in the audience, and decided upon hearing this that instead of kidnapping the President and Vice President and cabinet members, they would just murder them.  An examination of Lincoln’s personal behavior and his relationship with African-Americans also shows that he had an exceptionally warm and respectful attitude, especially in the last several years of his life. 

I would prefer to have history taught in terms of themes.  The themes I’d emphasize would include: 1) progress toward recognizing the equal dignity and rights and value of all persons; 2) progress away from governments based on tyranny and aristocratic rule and toward democratic principles; 3) progress toward enhancing and increasing human freedom; 4) progress toward ensuring that basic needs are met, especially through technology in agriculture, clothing manufacturing, and energy production; 5) progress in using technology and science to improve the quality of life (e.g., water purification, mass transit, vaccinations, germ theory, antibiotics, etc.); 6) Development of peace consciousness and diminishing emphasis on warfare, imperialism, conquest, and militarism; and 7) milestones in political practice, political theory, legal developments, and basic facts about American or international law and events related to how we govern ourselves.

I would teach history and organize history textbooks in terms of these seven dimensions of history, and emphasize ways that we moved away from the ideals, and the ways we advanced those aspects.  I think history should raise awareness in the general public about the goals we have sought in our society, and how we have progressed toward those goals, and how we have regressed away from those goals.