#censorship #DEI #museums #TrumpRegime
In the past five years, legislators in at least forty-four states introduced bans on so-called 'divisive topics,' some of which banned critical race theory directly. This makes it less likely for students to discuss chattel slavery in an open, academic forum. Sentencing the topic to obscurity is unjust, especially considering the emphasis on preserving White people's history. Threaten to dismantle a Confederate general's statue in the deep south, and you will quickly see that resistance. While some may have assumed that such censorship would primarily impact students, President Trump's emphasis on targeting museums reveals a broader agenda of limiting the presentation of historical narratives, arguing that exhibits should reflect his personal views. He criticized the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History for focusing on how bad slavery was.' Trump claimed curators didn't put enough 'brightness' on display. His criticism is reminiscent of when White visitors go to southern plantations and complain if the tour guide discusses the lives of enslaved people. Such a comment promotes historical erasure.
To attend a museum centered on the legacy of African Americans and suggest that slavery should become a minor footnote is to prioritize pleasant narratives over historical accuracy. The institution lasted for 246 years if you start the clock with African enslavement in Jamestown (1619), and 339 years if you consider those enslaved in the Spanish colony, Florida (1526). Black Americans endured slavery in this land longer than they've been free and continued to face racial persecution after its abolition. For instance, there's a loophole in the 13th Amendment, which permits involuntary servitude for those convicted of a crime. States have used this measure to target Black people and force them into exploitative labor arrangements. Also, given the impact of Jim Crow, an apartheid system of racial segregation and oppression that persisted from 1865 to 1968, it is dishonest to suggest anti-black racism in general, or slavery in particular, had a limited impact. Indeed, the racial wealth gap produced by chattel slavery has never closed. And disparities in the criminal justice, healthcare, and educational systems point to a society still grappling with racial inequality.
This, of course, all started with African enslavement. Why, then, should anyone be able to demand that part of their story be removed? In authoritarian regimes, it's common for leaders to keep a tight grip on the messaging the public has access to. In this case, the Trump administration is trying to whitewash the history of chattel slavery, to claim it wasn't that bad, even though, if we listen to those Black people who survived it, it certainly was. Seven years after Fredrick Douglass self-liberated, he told a group of abolitionists about the horrors that enslavers subjected him to, using 'the lash, the chain,' and 'thumbscrew.'
Louisiana sugar parishes had a pattern of 'deaths greatly exceeding births,' Khalil Gibran Muhammad noted in The 1619 Project. 'Back-breaking labor and inadequate net nutrition meant that enslaved people in the United States were far less able to resist the common and life-threatening diseases of dirt and poverty.'
White people who say slavery is no big deal have no interest in enduring the conditions of enslavement, of working all day without pay, of having their cultural practices outlawed, and families separated. So, why do some try to downplay its significance? Doing so is an effort to limit constructive discourse on the lasting impacts of chattel slavery. The Daughters of the Confederacy promoted whitewashed narratives that lionized the actions of slave owners while downplaying the harm they inflicted upon Black people. Similarly, Moms for Liberty, a modern group of conservative women, supports censorship laws that limit or remove black historical narratives."
https://www.levelman.com/censorship-of-black-history-fascist/