The Dangers of Whitewashing History

[Katy]

I got lost in a TedX loop today and this video especially stood out as interesting and informative.  Did you know this about Rosa Parks?

 

[PrincessMommy]

that was good.

Yes, I did know that Rosa Parks was an activist and not a "tired grandma", although I didn't learn that until I was in my 40s.  I didn't know about her grandfather and husband.  

I found what he said about White Fragility starting at about min 5:40 to be very interesting.  It makes me want to take a step back and look at my own life and how I respond to it being challenged.  

[SKL]

I knew she was an activist.  Not sure where or when I read that. 

I am old enough that they didn't have black history month etc. in my school.  In fact, when I was born, there were ugly race riots in my city of birth, so it was a while before they started being able to talk productively about the civil rights movement in the schools.  I probably first learned about Rosa Parks when my younger siblings were in elementary.  And yes, the story went that Rosa was a sweet lady who was just tired.  I don't know what they teach in schools today.

[gardenmom5]

here's one about slavery.

I never learned this in school - but it was touched on in a Netflix series about "great irish castles".  (goes well with great british castles.)

eta: modern historians try to get around this by claiming they were "indentured servants".   if it is treated (and abused) like a slave, has no rights like slave, has no hope of ever being free like a slave - it's a slave.

Edited March 11, 2019 by gardenmom5

[Sneezyone]

I went to a first of its kind urban magnet school with radical teachers so I knew she was a radical activist although I never knew her age.Most of what I know, though, I learned at home from reading my parents’ books. The Fire Next Time changed my life. It was my parents who told me MLK parachuted into Birmingham, highlighting the strides locals made. That’s what led me to Medgar Evers and Malcolm X and more.  It is hard to be a parent tho and have to correct misapprehensions at home. My kids have taken to (voluntarily) discussing their history lessons around the dinner table so we can fill in gaps. They know there’s always more to the story.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I went to a first of its kind urban magnet school with radical teachers so I knew she was a radical activist and although I never knew her age.Most of what I know, though, I learned st home from reading my parents’ books. The Fire Next Time changed my life. It was my parents who told me MLK parachuted into Birmingham, highlighting the strides locals made. That’s what led me to Medgar Evers and Malcolm X and more.  It is hard to be a parent tho and have to correct misapprehensions at home. My kids have taken to (voluntarily) discussing their history lessons around the dinner table so we can fill in gaps. They know there’s always more to the story.

 

Thanks for the recommendation.  I see The Fire Next Time is on audible, I think I might make it my next audiobook.

[Farrar]

Yes, I knew that. I haven't seen the "she was a tired old lady who suddenly decided she was fed up" narrative in any serious sources in awhile, but I was absolutely taught that as a kid and I've definitely seen that implied more recently too. I've especially seen it just left off. As in, this woman, with no background, did this thing, and that was that. Her story is still often told in a vacuum, I think.

One of my favorite TED talks is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" - I feel like this has a sort of overlap to the broader points of that talk.

[EMS83]

22 minutes ago, Farrar said:

One of my favorite TED talks is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" - I feel like this has a sort of overlap to the broader points of that talk.

I loved that one when I ran across it. 

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Thanks for the recommendation.  I see The Fire Next Time is on audible, I think I might make it my next audiobook.

 

I wrote an undergrad essay on generational differences in the way black Americans in A Raisin in the Sun perceive dreams, God, and hope and it wasn’t until that essay that I realized how profoundly my ideas had been shaped by those essays. I think I was 12 when I read Baldwin and it just...resonated.

[Katy]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

I wrote an undergrad essay on generational differences in the way black Americans in A Raisin in the Sun perceive dreams, God, and hope and it wasn’t until that essay that I realized how profoundly my ideas had been shaped by those essays. I think I was 12 when I read Baldwin and it just...resonated.

 

I'm ashamed to say that despite seeing A Raisin in the Sun performed twice as a teenager I can barely remember it.  I remember really liking it and that's about it. I see there was a movie though.  I'll watch that after I read the book you recommended.  Thank you!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

here's one about slavery.

I never learned this in school - but it was touched on in a Netflix series about "great irish castles".  (goes well with great british castles.)

eta: modern historians try to get around this by claiming they were "indentured servants".   if it is treated (and abused) like a slave, has no rights like slave, has no hope of ever being free like a slave - it's a slave.

FWIW the claims in that link are greatly disputed, and while indentured servitude was awful, it legally was a very different status in the colonies than that of a slave.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/irish-slaves-myth.html

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia#start_entry

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

Yes I knew she was an activist but that's not what I originally learned. In school I was taught the tired grandma story. It wasn't until I was an adult that I found out real history. 

[Storygirl]

I have not watched the video (because it is midnight, and I'm tired and should be asleep). But I was taught the story that Rosa Parks was tired that day and was not taught that she was an activist. I learned the activist facts later. I was in elementary school in the late 70s and early 80s. I would hope that today's history classes are doing a better job, but I don't know whether they are (we were homeschooling during my kids' elementary years).

Another back story that is not well known is that she was not the first to refuse to give up her seat. I learned that from a radio program a couple of years ago.

[Bluegoat]

I do remember learning she was tired and old - and I am pretty sure that to some extent this came from some sort of children's book. I'm not sure I read this in school, I might have heard it on Reading Rainbow.  I did know as an adult that she was an activist, I didn't really have any idea what her age was.

We only learned a bit about her in school as we tended to look more at Canadian examples.

[gstharr]

I grew up in the civil rights era and knew the legend of Rosa Parks.  It was not until I read Parting the Waters (by Taylor Branch), that I learned Ms Parks was not the first black person/woman to refuse to give up her seat.  There were many.  In fact, some were arrested in the weeks prior to Ms Parks.  What distinguished Ms Parks was not that she was an activist, but she had the educational background, clean criminal record, and demeanor to rally a cause.   That is why the civil rights leaders embraced her.    The book also gave me great respect for Harry Belafonte.  I always wondered why he was singing on the talk shows during this era.  Turns out he was a major fundraiser. The role of Goldman Sachs is also interesting.

[SKL]

I wonder if the impression of "old lady" comes from how she was dressed, which in later decades would be considered old fashioned / old lady dress / hair style.

[Garga]

I always thought she was just tired of standing at her job all day and had sat down.  When a white man came on the bus, he expected her to give up her seat and she was finally just too tired and fed up to do so. I’m pretty sure I learned this in school (class of ‘90)

It wasn’t until just a few years ago I heard that it wasn’t exactly like that.  

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I wonder if the impression of "old lady" comes from how she was dressed, which in later decades would be considered old fashioned / old lady dress / hair style.

 

That could be part  of it.  I think too I tended to think of an older person being someone who should be allowed sit on a crowded bus.  I always picture her as looking a lot like my grandmother, who looked like an old-fashioned lady to me, and who was the main person I rode the bus with as a kid.

[Bluegoat]

59 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

Everything I know about Rosa Parks, I learned from the media. This thread is the first time that I’ve ever read that she was an activist. I am disgusted to learn that the whole story about her was a fake narrative. 

 

That seems to be rather strong way of putting it - she did actually get arrested for not giving up her seat on a bus, which was a pretty disgusting state of affairs.  It's maybe not odd that kids in particular heard a simplified version of the story.

[athena1277]

I knew some of the correct story.  Probably because I have lived much of my adult life in AL, some of it in Montgomery.  There’s a woman I know who used to ride the bus in Montgomery at the time of the bus boycott.  It’s a shame that we have not gotten a lot further in improving race relations since that time.

[PrincessMommy]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

I wonder if the impression of "old lady" comes from how she was dressed, which in later decades would be considered old fashioned / old lady dress / hair style.

I started school in '69/'70 - so not that far off from when the events actually occurred that I was probably taught this.   I think the part about "old lady" may not have been taught, just implied... at least the "old" part.  But, as an elementary child anyone over 20 was *old*. KWIM?   

[Skippy]

This is just my own opinion, but I feel like race relations got a lot better during my lifetime. Then, it seems like in the last decade things have gotten worse. I think the powers-that-be on the far right and the far left like (need?) to have division and strife.

[Bluegoat]

So - having this strong sense that I got her being elderly from a book, I looked to see if I could find what book it might be.

One thing I noticed is that in a lot of the illustrations, she did look older, or at least I would have thought so as a child.

But I am sure that the book I am thinking of really emphasised that she was  very tired and that is why she wanted to sit.  

 

[Katy]

It's also possible that back then 42 was considered old I guess.  I know my Southern side of the family all get married and have children at much younger ages than those who live elsewhere.  One of my cousins was a grandmother at 42, and that was many decades later.

[PrincessMommy]

32 minutes ago, Katy said:

It's also possible that back then 42 was considered old I guess.  I know my Southern side of the family all get married and have children at much younger ages than those who live elsewhere.  One of my cousins was a grandmother at 42, and that was many decades later.

certainly if you compare old photos of grandparents with what grandparents look like today (that are roughly the same age) people *looked* older. It wasn't just the clothes.

[Ravin]

I learn new things about history all the time. Most of what I learned in school was little better than whitewashed campaigns for why this country is "great."

Concerning the Civil Rights movement, I recently learned about Bayard Rustin, whom I had never heard of at all, from this podcast: https://www.historyisgaypodcast.com/listen

[Guest]

I learned the tired old lady story. In fact, I feel like I remember a children’s book about this (not very old, maybe twenty years ago) with watercolor-like illustrations, depicting Rosa Parks as old and tired from working all day. 

I love TED talks. 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, Quill said:

I learned the tired old lady story. In fact, I feel like I remember a children’s book about this (not very old, maybe twenty years ago) with watercolor-like illustrations, depicting Rosa Parks as old and tired from working all day. 

I love TED talks. 

 

I am sure that is the book I remember too.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Ravin said:

I learn new things about history all the time. Most of what I learned in school was little better than whitewashed campaigns for why this country is "great."

Concerning the Civil Rights movement, I recently learned about Bayard Rustin, whom I had never heard of at all, from this podcast: https://www.historyisgaypodcast.com/listen

He was ahead of his time. 

[Farrar]

4 hours ago, Skippy said:

This is just my own opinion, but I feel like race relations got a lot better during my lifetime. Then, it seems like in the last decade things have gotten worse. I think the powers-that-be on the far right and the far left like (need?) to have division and strife.

I would argue that race "relations" are still improving. However, awareness of issues that never went away in terms of various forms of inequality are now being pushed to the forefront again. I don't think that hurts "relations." Calling out inequality and racism is not a way of creating strife or furthering racism - it's a way to push for more equality. It has made a lot of white Americans really uncomfortable though. But I would say it really doesn't need to.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I would argue that race "relations" are still improving. However, awareness of issues that never went away in terms of various forms of inequality are now being pushed to the forefront again. I don't think that hurts "relations." Calling out inequality and racism is not a way of creating strife or furthering racism - it's a way to push for more equality. It has made a lot of white Americans really uncomfortable though. But I would say it really doesn't need to.

 

I see it as a natural ebb and flow. There is progress (Reconstruction) and there is backlash (Jim Crow). There is still more progress (Civil Rights Era) and there is a backlash (now). The idea that progress is one long, continuous line in a positive, upward direction is erroneous and I think a lot of people are caught off guard by the need to defend AND advance the gains that have been made over time. I'm not of the mindset that everyone needs to be comfy while this process takes place, or that there will be peace and tranquility throughout the whole thing, but I see, in those who DO believe those things (of all stripes), a great deal of discomfort. I was born, quite literally, 11 years after the Voting Rights Act. This isn't ancient history.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I see it as a natural ebb and flow. There is progress (Reconstruction) and there is backlash (Jim Crow). There is still more progress (Civil Rights Era) and there is a backlash (now). The idea that progress is one long, continuous line in a positive, upward direction is erroneous and I think a lot of people are caught off guard by the need to defend AND advance the gains that have been made over time. I'm not of the mindset that everyone needs to be comfy while this process takes place, or that there will be peace and tranquility throughout the whole thing, but I see, in those who DO believe those things (of all stripes), a great deal of discomfort. I was born, quite literally, 11 years after the Voting Rights Act. This isn't ancient history.

I agree. I don't think it needs to be comfortable... but I also think there's a massive overreaction on the part of a lot of my fellow white folks when we see a criticism of something as racist. I've been trying to retrain my kneejerk defensiveness and say, okay, this doesn't have to be personal or an insult. And while we need to understand our history and own our actions and pasts, it also is the case that the best thing I can do is not be offended and make it all about me but just to learn, change, and move forward with new awareness.

Like, this thing with Rosa Parks. If I was a white elementary school teacher using a textbook that presented the "tired old lady" narrative and that's what I had learned so I was repeating it, I could get really defensive. "I'm just following the curriculum!" "How do I know which version is right!?" "There's nothing wrong with the way I've been teaching it! I've been honoring a black woman, so why is any criticizing me? That's not fair!" "So the details were a little wrong. It doesn't hurt anyone!" Or I could take a breath, think, gee, that's good to learn! And purge my materials and ask the district to get better ones, and reframe how I teach the topic. And while this thread has been super rational, I know a sad number of people will be defensive - especially if it's presented in a "we need to get rid of these books/this narrative" way (even though, good grief, we need to get rid of misleading information is totally a fair thing to demand!). And some small (but vocal) number of those folks will then claim that this disruption in the narrative, being asked to change their teaching when their intentions were very good, was making "race relations" worse. So... the backfire effect is always uncomfortable, but some people choose not to fight that discomfort and instead to embrace it. I think we don't have to do that. We can be better than that and learn to listen... in minor discomfort instead of having conniptions. Which, again, no one in this thread was having. But sometimes, when told that something is racially insensitive, some people definitely have.

[Sneezyone]

48 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I agree. I don't think it needs to be comfortable... but I also think there's a massive overreaction on the part of a lot of my fellow white folks when we see a criticism of something as racist. I've been trying to retrain my kneejerk defensiveness and say, okay, this doesn't have to be personal or an insult. And while we need to understand our history and own our actions and pasts, it also is the case that the best thing I can do is not be offended and make it all about me but just to learn, change, and move forward with new awareness.

Like, this thing with Rosa Parks. If I was a white elementary school teacher using a textbook that presented the "tired old lady" narrative and that's what I had learned so I was repeating it, I could get really defensive. "I'm just following the curriculum!" "How do I know which version is right!?" "There's nothing wrong with the way I've been teaching it! I've been honoring a black woman, so why is any criticizing me? That's not fair!" "So the details were a little wrong. It doesn't hurt anyone!" Or I could take a breath, think, gee, that's good to learn! And purge my materials and ask the district to get better ones, and reframe how I teach the topic.

Yep. A friend of mine shared a story today. Her son attends a G&T magnet HS for the arts that's primarily attended by students of color. The old principal, a black man, allowed/negotiated a dress code that permitted hoodies. The new principal, who started this year, declared hoodies "dangerous" and got into a confrontation with her son about wearing one after he unilaterally changed the dress code. Let's unpack this...

1. The students are attending an arts magnet and already have an alternative mindset.
2. These kids are smart so, "Because I told you so" would never be enough of a reason to do anything.
3. This woman's son is black and openly confronted the principal over his decision to reinforce rather than confront/change the idea that a black boy or man in a hoodie is dangerous.

Initially, the principal took this critique as a challenge to his authority and racial neutrality not a challenge to his reasoning. He was defensive and threatened to expel a child who was thriving at the school. Fortunately the principal, when confronted by the parents, was willing and able to consider all three points and change course but I don't think the fact that a discussion occurred at all is an indication that things are worse, merely that people now have the desire and agency to address these biases. Having everyone's cards on the table is quite clarifying.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Yep. A friend of mine shared a story today. Her son attends a G&T magnet HS for the arts that's primarily attended by students of color. The old principal, a black man, allowed/negotiated a dress code that permitted hoodies. The new principal, who started this year, declared hoodies "dangerous" and got into a confrontation with her son about wearing one after he unilaterally changed the dress code. Let's unpack this...

1. The students are attending an arts magnet and already have an alternative mindset.
2. These kids are smart so, "Because I told you so" would never be enough of a reason to do anything.
3. This woman's son is black and openly confronted the principal over his decision to reinforce rather than confront/change the idea that a black boy or man in a hoodie is dangerous.

Initially, the principal took this critique as a challenge to his authority and racial neutrality not a challenge to his reasoning. He was defensive and threatened to expel a child who was thriving at the school. Fortunately the principal, when confronted by the parents, was willing and able to consider all three points and change course but I don't think the fact that a discussion occurred at all is an indication that things are worse, merely that people now have the desire and agency to address these biases. Having everyone's cards on the table is quite clarifying.

 

 

Wow. Yeah. Expelling a kid who criticized a policy would be a depressing example of that. I'm glad clearer heads prevailed.

[SKL]

The writers could also be conflating 2 things for simplicity in this watered-down world we are passing down to our kids via school.

1) Rosa Parks, a black lady, decided she wasn't moving out of her bus seat despite the racist rules.  While this was activism, they don't get into what "activist" means in primary school.

2) Who sits in what seat on a bus should be based on who needs the seat most - tired, older, etc. - not on what color anyone's skin is.

A deeper question IMO is what kind of lesson is developmentally appropriate for young school children.

[katilac]

On 3/12/2019 at 1:27 PM, SKL said:

The writers could also be conflating 2 things for simplicity in this watered-down world we are passing down to our kids via school.

1) Rosa Parks, a black lady, decided she wasn't moving out of her bus seat despite the racist rules.  While this was activism, they don't get into what "activist" means in primary school.

2) Who sits in what seat on a bus should be based on who needs the seat most - tired, older, etc. - not on what color anyone's skin is.

A deeper question IMO is what kind of lesson is developmentally appropriate for young school children.

 

They definitely can and do define activism and activists in primary schools! Not all schools, I'm sure, but many of them, and it is not only possible but not all that hard. There are very few 3rd-graders who couldn't get the gist of it. Even 1st- and 2nd-graders can easily understand that Rosa Parks worked to change the rules on purpose, not by accident. That's not a difficult concept at all - heck, show me a preschooler who doesn't say, "She did it on purpose!" or "I didn't mean to!"

So you explain political (laws) and social (acceptable ways to treat each other) and then say that an activist is someone who works for political and social change, on purpose. Boom. Add details as appropriate. It's absolutely developmentally appropriate for young school children. 

It's impossible to live in my area without running into the occasional protest or march, so I can't wrap my head around the idea of young kids not knowing what activism is, lol. 

[Farrar]

I don't buy that young kids can't understand the idea of an activist. It's "she had cared about this issue and tried to find ways to fix it for many years" instead of "she suddenly decided she was fed up." Those are very different stories with very different implications. One of the implications of the second is that African Americans were okay with segregation for a long time until they suddenly weren't. I think we see echoes of that today when people think that African Americans are "suddenly" upset about things like police violence or microaggressions, when actually, these are issues that have been at play for a long time. It's that our awareness of them has changed in broader society. White Americans living in the 1950's and 60's felt the same way about the fight for school and business integration.

I don't think misleading narratives are ever "developmentally appropriate." I think simplified narratives can be. And it's always going to be the case that we deepen our understanding as we learn more. We're always going to feel that important things were left out as we learn them. But there should never be a "oh, Santa's not real!" reveal moment for kids with history.

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Farrar

[EMS83]

39 minutes ago, Farrar said:

But there should never be a "oh, Santa's not real!" reveal moment for kids with history.

This.  I really wish they'd adopt the chronological approach in public school.

I know that sounds unrelated, but I'm not sure it is.  It's not only about teaching the truth, but keeping things in perspective.

Edited March 14, 2019 by CES2005

[Bluegoat]

50 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I don't buy that young kids can't understand the idea of an activist. It's "she had cared about this issue and tried to find ways to fix it for many years" instead of "she suddenly decided she was fed up." Those are very different stories with very different implications. One of the implications of the second is that African Americans were okay with segregation for a long time until they suddenly weren't. I think we see echoes of that today when people think that African Americans are "suddenly" upset about things like police violence or microaggressions, when actually, these are issues that have been at play for a long time. It's that our awareness of them has changed in broader society. White Americans living in the 1950's and 60's felt the same way about the fight for school and business integration.

I don't think misleading narratives are ever "developmentally appropriate." I think simplified narratives can be. And it's always going to be the case that we deepen our understanding as we learn more. We're always going to feel that important things were left out as we learn them. But there should never be a "oh, Santa's not real!" reveal moment for kids with history.

 

 

I don't know if I'd have said that it was a misleading narrative.  I think it's more about which parts of a narrative you choose to emphasise in a particular telling.  Are you wanting mostly to talk about Parks as an activist, and what an activist does, or the history of a movement?  Or do you want to focus on what the nature of the basic justice of who gets to sit on the bus?  The facts can illustrate both points, but it isn't always necessary to tell both.  

With story book aged kids, personally I think talking about basic justice is more primary than talking about things like who was a political activist.  Not that a story about that would be wrong, but I also think a child isn't ill served if they don't hear much about those details until upper elementary - they will still get it, they will probably understand what it means a lot more clearly, they have a better developed sense of time by about grade 3.  But the justice question is the sort of idea that is important from the youngest ages, is timeless with regards to application, and which small children understand often quite deeply.