Social Justice Usage
Source: O’Kane, C. (2021, July 8). Head of teachers union says critical race theory isn’t taught in schools, vows to defend “honest history.” Retrieved July 9, 2021 from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critical-race-theory-teachers-union-honest-history/
Teaching American history, [Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the largest teachers’ union in the United States] said, “requires considering all the facts available to us — including those that are uncomfortable — like the history of enslavement and discrimination toward people of color and people perceived as different.” She said teachers know they “teach history, not hate.” She said laws restricting lessons on race “impinge on educators’ professional obligations — our obligation to teach honest history, as well as to teach current events, like the January 6 attack on the Capitol.” Weingarten vowed that the union will defend members who get in trouble for teaching “honest history,” adding that it has a legal defense fund ready to go.
New Discourses Commentary
“Honest history” is a name recently given to teaching history through the revisionist and political lens of Critical Race Theory and the other Critical Theories under the umbrella of the Theory of Critical Social Justice. A key example of “honest history” is the widely debunked and discredited (and Pulitzer Prize winning) 1619 Project, which attempts to reframe the history of America as having always been rooted in and based upon slavery and the social, economic, political, and cultural oppression of blacks and other “minortized” races by whites (see also, white supremacy). The 1619 Project, which would be classified within Critical Social Justice as “honest history” and mandated to be taught in public schools throughout America (and beyond), is, in fact, a critical historiography of America that is rooted more in narrative and distortion than in historical fact, which is rejects along with any possible claim of objectivity in the telling of history.
Within the Theory of Critical Social Justice, there is no such thing as an objective frame of reference from which one could report history or any other subject (see also, God’s eye view). That is, in Theory, everything is intrinsically political (see also, the personal is political). Because everything is political, especially teaching (“teaching is a political act” is probably the foundational mantra of Critical Pedagogy, the application of Critical Theory to the field and practice of education), one is forced to choose the right politics within which to teach history and other subjects. For those with critical consciousness or who seek to induce it (this being the explicit goal of Critical Pedagogy in education), this means to teach history through the lenses of Critical Theory, including Critical Race Theory (see also, the right side of History). Only this history would be considered “honest history.” All other approaches would be taken as “whitewashed” history because Critical Theory believes everything outside of itself to be part of a giant society-wide conspiracy theory to keep the masses ignorant of their own suffering, servitude, and oppression so that they will maintain the existing status quo for those who hold power and privilege in society.
For Critical Theorists, “honest history” would necessarily have to attempt to use revisionist history (and historiography) to induce a critical consciousness in students. This would be achieved by portraying the history of the West and the United States (or other countries) in a light that makes out that they have always been intrinsically oppressive and all other versions of history as fatally biased. They would believe this is “honest” history because, in their minds, it is the honest telling of history to point out only the negative aspects in a politically useful way to their own goals (see also, negative thinking). This is because Critical Theories are critical, in the sense meant by Karl Marx when he said, “ruthless criticism of everything that exists” (see also, Marxism and neo-Marxism).
Related Terms
1619 Project; Bias; Conspiracy theory; Critical; Critical consciousness; Critical pedagogy; Critical Race Theory; Critical Theory; God’s eye view; Historiography; History; Marxism; Minoritize; Narrative; Negative thinking; Neo-Marxism; Objectivity; Oppression; Personal is political, the; Power (systemic); Privilege; Race; Revisionism; Right side of History, the; Social Justice; Status quo; Theory; White; White supremacy
Revision date: 7/9/21
5 comments
People who use the term honest history and claim no real objectivity wish only to propagate their own narrative about history. It is simply the misuse of the word honest. A good translation for this is honest = our story.
What 1619 NEVER mentions is the fact that the first African workers to arrive on American shores were actually indentured workers,no different to the thousands of Scots and Irish who made the same journey.Another “inconvenient truth” is the fact that their employer was himself black.OOPS
I think you have raised some good points! Some of the best Army and Navy officers and men in the Union forces were Southerners who detested succession and slavery. By all means we should raise statues and memorials to them–and not only in the South.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
I’m all for honest history. Let’s replace all the statues of Confederate generals with statues of Southern economists who were writing well before the Civil War that slavery was unsustainable as an economic system because the cost of maintaining a slave was more than what a slave could produce. That sure doesn’t fit the narrative, does it? How about erecting statues to the 4000+ Southern political prisoners who opposed secession and the war? Or how about erecting a statue to those who deserted from the Confederate army? Better research equals better history. No, neither side in the argument wants to do that because with better research you get better history and that doesn’t fit the narrative of either side. One side wants to perpetuate the narrative of the evil of the South without exceptions while the either wants to hold on to the military narrative of courage, bravery, and loyalty. We’ll hold on to Pickett’s Charge but not to the charge that he was a war criminal who executed captured Confederate soldiers who joined the Union army. Another reason why statues won’t be erected to Southern economists, Southern political prisoners, or Confederate deserters…they’re White. We certainly don’t want to celebrate that!
Very revealing how it appears to be unnacceptable for those who disagree with critical theory to suggest any method of historiography, but at the same time, the critical theorists claim it is imperative they have the right to tell children the “proper way” to think about history. If that does not clue one in to their intent to indoctrinate, nothing will. It’s immoral for anyone else to indoctrinate school children, but it’s NECESSARY when they do it!