Lies My Teacher Told Me (21 page)

Historians have chronicled the rise of racism in the West. Before the 1450s Europeans
considered Africans exotic but not necessarily inferior. As more and more nations joined
the slave trade, Europeans came to characterize Africans as stupid, backward, and
uncivilized. Amnesia set in: Europe gradually found it convenient to forget that Moors
from Africa had brought to Spain and Italy much of the learning that led to the
Renaissance. Europeans had knov that Timbuctu, with its renowned university and library,
was a center learning. Now, forgetting Timbuctu, Europe and European Americans perceiv
Africa as the “dark continent.”21 By the 1850s many white Americans, includin some Northerners, claimed that black people
were so hopelessly inferior thi slavery was a proper form of education for them; it also
removed them phy cally from the alleged barbarism of the “dark continent.”

The superstructure of racism has long outlived the social structure of slavery that
generated it. The following passage from Margaret Mitchell's Cone with ibe Wind, written in the 1930s, shows racism alive and well in that decade. The narrator is
interpreting Reconstruction: “The former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated
to the seats of the mighty. There they conducted themselves as creatures of small
intelligence might naturally be expected to da Like monkeys or small children turned loose
among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wildeither
from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance.”25 White supremacy permeates Mitchell's romantic bestseller. Yet in 1988, when the American
Library Association asked library patrons to name the best book in the library, Gone with the Wine/won an actual majority against all other books ever published!'

The very essence of what we have inherited from slavery is the idea that it is
appropriate, even “natural,” for whites to be on top, blacks on the bottom. In its core
our culture tells ustells all of us, including African Americansthat Europe's domination
of the world came about because Europeans were smarter. In their cote, many whites and
some people of color believe this. White supremacy is not only a residue of slavery, to be
sure. Developments in American history since slavery ended have maintained it. Textbooks
that do not discuss white involvement in slavery in the period before 1863, however, are
not likely to analyze white racism as a factor in more recent years. Only five of the
twelve textbooks books list racism, racial prejudice, or any term beginning with race in their indexes.27 Only two textbooks discuss what might have caused racism. The closest any of the textbooks
comes to explaining the connection between slavery and racism is this single sentence from The American Tradition-. “In defense of their 'peculiar institution,' southerners became more and more determined
to maintain their own way of life.” Such a statement hardly suffices to show today's
students the origin of racism in our society-it doesn't even use the word! The mean Adventure offers a longer treatment: “[African Americans] looked dif:rem from members of white
ethnic groups. The color of their skin made assimilation difficult. For this reason they
remained outsiders.” Here Adventure as retreated from history to lay psychology. Unfortunately for its argument, skin color in
itself docs not explain racism. Jane Elliot's famous experiments in M'S classrooms have shown that children can quickly develop discriminatory behavior and
prejudiced beliefs based on eye color. Conversely, the leadership wsiiions that African
Americans frequently reached among American Indian itions from Ecuador to the Arctic show
that people do not automatically discriminate against others on [he basis of skin color.]

Events and processes in American history, from the time of slavery to the present, are
what explain racism. Not one textbook connects history and racism, however. Half-formed
and uninformed notions rush in to fill the analytic vacuum textbooks thus leave. Adventure's three sentences imply that it is natural to exclude people whose skin color is different.
White students may conclude that all societies are racist, perhaps by nature, so racism is all right. Black students may conclude that all whites are racist, perhaps by nature, so to be antiwhite is
all right. The elementary thinking in Adventure's three sentences is all too apparent. Yet this is the most substantial treatment of the causes of racism among all twelve textbooks.

In omitting racism or treating it so poorly, history textbooks shirk a critical responsibility. Not all whites are or have been racist. Levels of racism have changed over time," If textbooks were to explain this, they would give students some perspective on what caused racism in the past, what perpetuates it today,

and how it might be reduced in the future. Although textbook authors no longer sugarcoat
how slavery affected African Americans, they minimize white complicity in it. They present slavery virtually as
uncaused, a tragedy, rather than a wrong perpetrated by some people on others. Textbooks
maintain the fiction that planters did the work on the plantations. “There was always much
work to be done,” according to Triumph of the American Nation, “for a cotton grower also raised most of the food eaten by his family and slaves.”
Although managing a business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was surely
time-consuming, the truth as to who did most of the work on the plantation is surely
captured more accurately by this quotation from a Mississippi planter lamenting his situation after the war: “I never did a day's
work in my life, and don't know how to begin. You see me in these coarse old clothes;
well, I never wore coarse clothes in my life before the war.”

The emotion generated by textbook descriptions of slavery is sadness, not] anger. For
there's no one to be angry at. Somehow we ended up with four million slaves in America but no owners! This is part of a
pattern in our textbookanything bad in American history happened anonymously. Everyone
named il our history made a positive contribution (except John Brown, as the neX chapter shows). Or as Frances FitzGerald put it when she analyzed textbooks f 1979, “In all history, there is no known case of anyone's creating a problem for anyone else.“” Certainly the Founding Fathers never created one. ”Popular moderaj depictions of Washington and Jefferson are utterly at variance with their lives as
eighteenth-century slave-holding planters,“” Textbooks play their part by minimizing slavery in the lives of the founders. As with Woodrow Wilson, Helen Keller, and
Christopher Columbus, authors cannot bear to reveal anything bad about our heroes.
Nevertheless, almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were
slaveowners.

In real life the Founding Fathers and their wives wrestled with slavery. Textbooks
canonize Patrick Henry for his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. Not one tells us
that eight months after delivering the speech he ordered “diligent patrols” to keep
Virginia slaves from accepting the British offer of freedom to those who would join their
side. Henry wrestled with the contradiction, exclaiming, “Would anyone believe I am the master ofslaves ofmy own purchase!”“
Almost no one would today, because only two of the twelve textbooks, Land of Promise and The American Adventure, even mention the inconsistency. Henry's understanding of the discrepancy between his words and his deeds never led him to
act differently, to his slaves' sorrow. Throughout the Revolutionary period he added
slaves to his holdings, and even at his death, unlike some other Virginia planters, he
freed not a one. Nevertheless, Triumph of ike American Nation quotes Henry calling slavery ”as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the
Bible and destructive of liberty," without ever mentioning that he held slaves. American Adventures devotes three whole pages to Henry, constructing a fictitious melodrama in which his father worries, “How would he ever
earn a living?” Adventures then tells how Henry failed at storekeeping, “tried to make a living by raising
tobacco,” “started another store,” “had three children as well as a wife to support,”
“knew he had to make a living in mme way,” “so he decided to become a lawyer.” The student who reads this chapter and later learns that Henry grew wealthy from the work of scores of slaves has a
right to feel hoodwinked.

Even more embarrassing is the case of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. American history
textbooks use several tactics to harmonize the contradiction between Jefferson's
assertion that everyone has an equal right to "Life,

ttrty, and the pursuit of Happiness“ and his enslavement of 175 human leings at the time
he wrote those words. JefTerson's slaveholding affected almost everything he did, from his
opposition to internal improvements to his eign policy. Nonetheless, half of our textbooks never note that Jefferson owned slaves. Life and Liberty offers a half-page minibiography of Jefferson, ivealing that he was ”shy,“ ”stammered,“
and ”always worked hard at what he Elsewhere Life contrasts Jefferson's political beliefs with Alexander milton's and supplies six
paragraphs about “Jeffersonian Changes” of Federist policies, noting that Jefferson
refused to wear a wig, repealed a whiskey tax, and walked rather than rode in his inaugural parade. Life dud Liberty says nothing about Jefferson and slavery, however. American History offers six different illustrations of the man for us to admire but makes no mention of
his slaveholding. The Challenge of freedom mentions Jefferson on sixteen different pages but never in the context of slavery.

Even textbooks that admit that Jefferson owned slaves go out of their way to downplay the
fact. The American Way buries his complicity with the institution in a paragraph about his opposition to the
practice:

In his Notes on the State ofVirginia, published in 1787, Thomas Jefferson spoke out against owning slaves. Slavery, he said,
made tyrants out of the masters and destroyed the spirit of the slaves, , . . Although
Jefferson and others who owned slaves spoke against slavery, many people did not believe
that a mixed society of equals could work.

“Jefferson and others who owned slaves” is ambiguous. Only the careful reade will infer
that Jefferson was a slaveowner. Also ambiguous is Notes on the Slate of I Virginia, which contains lengthy arguments about why blacks and whites can I never participate in society equally. The attempt “will probably never end but i the
extermination of the one or the other race,” Jefferson luridly concluded. Wt has mischaracterized the source.

The paragraph in American Adventures is more forthright:

The idea of slavery bothered Thomas Jefferson all his life. As an adult, he himself owned
many slaves. He depended on their labor for raising tobacco on his plantation. Yet he
understood that slavery was wrong, terribly wrong. It was the opposite of the thing he
valued most in lifefreedom.

Again, the thrust of the treatment, the thing most likely to be remembered, j that
Jefferson was an opponent of slavery, not a slaveowner.

Textbooks stress that Jefferson was a humane master, privately tormen by slavery and
opposed to its expansion, not the type to destroy families I selling slaves. In truth, by
1820 Jefferson had become an ardent advocate ofI expansion of slavery to the western
territories. And he never let his ambivale about slavery affect his private life.
Jefferson was an average master who had I slaves whipped and sold into the Deep South as
examples, to induce other! to obey. By 1822, Jefferson owned 267 slaves. During his long
life, of hund of different slaves he owned, he freed only three, and five more at his deathall blood
relatives of his.

Another textbook tactic to minimize Jefferson's slaveholding is to admit it but emphasiz.e
that others did no better, “Jefferson revealed himself as a man of his times,” states Land ofPromise. Well, what were those times? Certainly most white American1! in the 1770s were racist. Race relations were in flux, however, due to the Revolutionary
War and to its underlying ideology about the rights of mankind thai Jefferson, among others, did so much to spread. Five thousand black soldiers
fought alongside whites in the Continental Army, “with courage and skill,” nccording to Triumph of the American Nation. In reality, of course, some fought “with courage and skill,” like some white recruits, and
some failed to fire their guns and ran off, like some white recruits.56 But because these men fought in integrated units for the most part and received equal pay,
their existence in itselfhelped decrease white racism,5 Moreover, the American Revolution is one of those moments in our history when the power of ideas made a real difference, “In contending for the birthright of
freedom,” said a captain in the army, “we have learned to feel for the bondage of others.”10 Abigail Adams wrote her husband in 1774 to ask how we could “fight ourselves for what we
are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we
have,”41 The contradiction between his words and his slaveowning embarrassed Patrick Henry, who
offered only ii lame excuse“I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here
without them”;md admitted, “I will not, I cannot justify it.”4! Other options were available to planters. Some, including George Washington, valued consistency more than Henry or Jefferson and freed their slaves outright or at east in
their wills. Other slaveowners freed their male slaves to fight in the ilonial army,
collecting a bounty for each one who enlisted. In the first two lecades after the
Revolution, the number of free blacks in Virginia soared tenfold, from 2,000 in 1780 to
20,000 in 1800. Most Northern states did away with slavery altogether. Thus Thomas
Jefferson lagged behind many whites of us nines in the actions he look wiih regard to slavery45 Manumission gradually flagged, however, because most of the white Southerners who, like Jefferson, kept their slaves, erew rich. Their neighbors 'I'OO rought well of them, as people often do of those richer than themselves. To a :e the ideology of the upper class became the ideology of the whole /, and as the
Revolution receded, that ideology increasingly justified ry. Jefferson himself spent much
of his slave-earned wealth on his mansion Vlomicello and on books that he later donated to
the University of Virginia;