“…our founding concept of universal equality, in a country where one-fifth of the population was enslaved, led to an increase in racial prejudice by creating a cognitive dissonance — one that could be resolved only by the white citizenry’s assumption of Black inferiority and inhumanity. It’s an unsettling idea, that the most revered ideal of the Declaration of Independence might be considered our original divisive concept.” The New York Times, 2021
I’m resisting the typical end-of-the-year round-up — posts I’ve written, topics we’ve discussed in the last year. Instead, I’ll focus on one word, one idea that might propel our way to substantive change in the coming new year. And that word is “divisive”.
At first blush, it appears counter-intuitive — divisiveness is supposedly a negative concept, especially considering today’s politics as one pertinent example. Rather, we should strive to come together to solve problems, work “across the aisle” and stop the inflammatory talk that, well, leads to divisiveness.
I’m all for uniting and working together, but it can’t always accomplish the substantive change that moves us forward as a country — to jump start the change perhaps a different tactic is needed, at least at the beginning, and the ‘consensus and working across the aisle parts’ should come at the end.
A New York Times article titled, “The 1619 Project and the Long Battle Over U.S. History” speaks bitter truths, not just about our country’s less that rosy history, but about the current roadblocks some people, elected officials and private citizens alike, advocate to shut down truth and the progress that comes with it.
This article, written in late 2021, explores in great detail the background of the 1619 Project and its subsequent implementation and expansion, which I’ve mentioned in a previous post. But it is the ensuing backlash to this project that is fascinating.
The 1619 Project essentially introduces into our national K-12 curriculum, additional, factual information about our country’s slave-holding past and its lasting impact on our society. This part of our history had been mostly ignored in history books, even those written by eminent scholars, but now the 1619 Project has been introduced into the curriculum, at least in some larger school districts, through the perspective of slaves and Black Americans in their own voices, including narrative prose, poetry and a focus on the contributions of Black citizens to our history. But according to its opponents, the 1619 Project has become its own sinister, divisive force.
“…opponents believed that “history that dwells on unsavory or even horrific episodes in our past is unpatriotic and likely to alienate young students from their own country.” … [And the proponents of the 1619 Project believe] “exposing students to grim chapters of our past is essential to the creation of informed, responsible citizens.”
For example, Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, introduced a bill, embarrassingly called the “Saving American History Act”, to prohibit the use of federal funds to integrate the 1619 Project’s studies into the national K-12 curriculum. He referred to the proposed 1619 Project curriculum as “racially divisive” and said that its inclusion in our country’s K-12 studies would result in “a revisionist account of history” that would deny the “noble principles freedom and equality on which our nation was founded.” Although Senator Cotton’s bill never became law, it purportedly inspired 12 states to enact statutes that currently prohibit the integration of the 1619 curriculum into the public schools.
According to this construction, it is divisive to tell the truth, to upend our self-congratulatory version of American history with additional facts that broaden and deepen our knowledge of our shared past. How do we learn from our history, including our mistakes, if much of it simply isn’t written down and studied by our current and future generations? To really learn critical thinking skills, as our current K-12 curriculum swears our students do, shouldn’t our children be taught the importance of holding two, contradictory ideas at the same time, and then how to reconcile or not reconcile them, like the fact that our country was founded on both slavery and freedom?
Interestingly, the author of this New York Times article, Jake Silverstein, proposes that rather than ban concepts thought to be divisive, we instead require them to be studied, starting with the idea that “all men are created equal”.
We don’t have to strain too much, though, to find that many of our great artists intend to upend our traditional thinking, or at least urge us to think differently from our “fathers”. Even an occasion as mundane as repairing a stone wall separating two properties deserves to be questioned, and maybe today would be called “divisive rhetoric” because it might be construed to contradict the wisdom of a traditional narrative. Enjoy reading one of my favorite poems, written, ironically, by a long dead, white man, Robert Frost.
Mending Wall
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Courtesy: The Poetry Foundation
—————————————————————————————————————
Let me know your thoughts in the Comment Section below.
And please accept my deepest gratitude to each and every subscriber and reader of Crime and Punishment: Why the Poor Stay Poor in America .
I wish you and your families only the best in 2023!
As always, I appreciate your interest and thoughtful ideas that make our Crime and Punishment community a welcoming space to visit and chat. There’s no time like the present to become a free or paid subscriber…and there’s no time like the New Year to Upgrade your free subscription to paid — it’s easy, and will allow me to continue and expand Crime and Punishment. Thanks in advance for your support!
Share this post