The 1776 Commission is a bad idea in the hands of a hyper-partisan President. By folding our education into the culture wars that the President hopes will get him reelected, Trump will turn the research and pedagogy of academia into more fodder in the partisan wars of Washington.
This is yet another effort to exploit backlash politics in order to build a coalition that ignores the needs and experiences of millions of Americans who won’t vote for him (and even of some who did vote for him). Besides the politics, his campaign for a “patriotic history,” as he defines it, would undermine the quality of the education students will receive.
Historians from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s integrated issues of racism, sexism, nativism, class conflict and more into our understanding of our country and broadened the canvas of actors who were considered important, including marginalized and disenfranchised peoples who struggled for their rights.
One of the classic works of this genre came from Columbia University’s Eric Foner, who produced a brilliant reframing of history in his 1988 book “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” which placed freed African Americans at the center of the story. Despite President Trump’s comments that “our heroes will never be forgotten,” Foner’s book is filled with exemplary Americans, just not the limited canon to which Trump refers.
Over the past two decades, Generation X and Millennial historians have also brought high politics back into the picture (I have been part of this cohort) by taking a fresh look at political and economic elites.
The nation was shaped by the same sorts of bitter and ongoing conflicts, as well as injustices, that were evident elsewhere around the globe. We often failed to correct our deeply-rooted problems.
The New York Times’ 1619 Project attempted to bring some of these approaches to their pieces about the effects of slavery in American history. Instead of beginning the story of the country with the Revolution against the British Empire, the project pushed the timeline back to 1619, the year enslaved Africans were brought to Jamestown in order to reveal how slavery and racial injustice have been an integral part of American history.
To be sure, there was a group of prominent historians, including my colleague Sean Wilentz and Brown University’s Gordon Wood, who criticized key parts of the publication and disagree on some of the narrative. For instance, they contend that the 1619 Project downplayed the impact of the anti-slavery movement on the founders and skewed the ideals that drove the resolution.
There is nothing unpatriotic about a clear-eyed view of our nation’s past. Indeed, understanding the problems and failures at the center of our…