Like most high school students, I read Shakespeare in class.  To be bluntly honest, I tolerated it.  Naturally, I understood that it was a necessary part of my education and in many respects, he became the standard.  However, his writing neither especially impressed me nor compelled me to read it outside of my required reading.  Though I understand that to many of you, this is heresy.

I also read Orwell’s 1984 in high school, ironically right around 1984.  It was required reading.  This book both fascinated and deeply distressed me; it was delicious.  First, while there were obviously many elements of this society that were deeply distressing, today I’ll focus on just one.  The predisposition to amend history, most memorably with the simple statement, “Oceania is, and always has been, at war with Eastasia.”  This is untrue; Oceania switched loyalties during the novel.  However, the book describes a society that simply refuses to acknowledge its history.  If the government makes a strong enough assertion, that’s what ‘truth’ will be.

I read notoriously slowly (then and now).  In high school, I adorned my mind with tales from Heinlein, Zelazny, Eddings, and Asprin.  They each spun tales of fantastic magical lands or settings that we’ve yet to reach technologically.  While devouring those pages fed my soul, I understood that they were works of fiction.  None of it existed.  We had yet to develop interplanetary travel or magical abilities that bend the laws of physics.  I grouped Orwell’s 1984 among those works of fiction.  I fully believed that events like the ones in that book neither occurred nor could occur, at least not here in the United States.

Have we amended our history?

As we grow older and presumably wiser, we realize that even our own personal history is deeply nuanced.  First, we observe events that occurred and write a story.  It becomes our ‘truth’.  Next, as we share those stories and listen to others recall the same event, we realize how fragile our ‘truth’ really is.  Finally, we may reconcile each bit of information and build a new story, one that more accurately reflects what truly occurred.

It’s like discovering years later that a loved one is a recovering alcoholic though sober for the entire time you’ve known them.  Abruptly, all those instances they were offered drinks are painted in a different light.  All those instances where people complained that they didn’t toast the couple at a wedding are oddly misplaced.

Have we done the same with our country’s history?  Have we intentionally selected a version of events that puts us in a more favorable, palatable light?  Are we like Oceania in 1984?

The teaching of history in schools

Many politicians drafted (and passed) laws opposing the teaching of history in schools.  First, they claim that it is designed to guilt our white children and turn our minority children into victims.  To which, I respond with effectively, this is absolute nonsense.  Next, they claim that teaching about race in schools equates it to CRT (Critical Race Theory).  Critical Race Theory is a college level course; this is equivalent to objecting the teaching of algebra because you object to Nth order differential equations.  I believe that the discussions on CRT are interesting and should be studied but as a college level course for those who want to have a deeper discussion on the issues.

As a concrete example, the simple teaching of history will mention that we, the United States, collected Japanese residents during World War II, most of them US citizens, and locked them in internment camps.  These are verifiable facts and are beyond contestation.  CRT looks at the reasoning behind the events, was it simply (misplaced) fear versus the country that just attacked us or was it a convenient opportunity to oppress yet another minority?  History speaks to the ‘what’; CRT tries to answer the ‘why’.

Nuanced perspectives to old ideas

As we learn more about subtle nuances about historical events, it paints them in a different picture.  And much like the above example of a loved one who is a recovering alcoholic, it’s appropriate for us to evaluate how we observe these historical events.  I know that some will label them as the new age of hyper political correctness, but I think that’s mostly about resisting change.  I’ll list two examples.

Some have reappropriated Columbus Day as Indigenous People Day.  Some will push back and scream about this change.  They’ll assert on Twitter that they’ll “celebrate Columbus Day.  Thank you very much.”  Naturally, you may celebrate the day in whatever way you choose to observe it.  However, I’ll encourage you to learn about why people are suggesting this change.  If you read through some of the horrific ways in which Christopher Columbus treated the Indigenous People, and still choose to observe it, then it’s an informed decision.  To me, it’d be like celebrating Jeffrey Dahmer Day.

What about Mount Rushmore?  It was built on land that is sacred to Great Sioux Nation.  Should we not respect that?  For us to continue to keep the monument is to choose to continue to desecrate it.  Allow me to frame it this way, if you can scream about Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling or artwork like Piss Christ, then they have a legitimate point.  It’s sacrilegious.  Does our collective need for the monument outweigh their need to stop the abuse?

Why the angst about verifiable facts?

We erred many times as our country has evolved.  We enslaved people to do our bidding.  Our congress passed a bill literally called ‘The Chinese Exclusion Act’.  When you say, “We are the greatest country in the world”… Who are you trying to convince?  Are you trying to convince them or yourself?

That said, I’m not saying that we’re not the greatest country in the world.  However, we have willfully committed a great many embarrassing misdeeds.  We should feel embarrassed that we denied black citizens and women the right to vote or that it took calling in the military to finally racially integrate schools.  Our country can be great and flawed; they’re not mutually exclusive.  We can teach that the Rosa Parks incident was indeed about race.  We do not need to literally amend the history books; we’re not going to crumble in shame.

Allow me to frame it this way, is the greatest country in the world filled with citizens who are so profoundly fragile that they’ll collapse under the weight of the history of Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson?  I think not.  Let’s pierce the veil and realize that our country is not perfect (nor was it ever).  We can embrace the idea that the figurative black eye, or specifically overcoming that adversity, is what really makes us great.  Let’s not become revisionists like Oceania in 1984.

Humility is among the most admired traits we observe in humans.  To continue to profess that we’re “the greatest country in the world” is the antithesis of humility.