Don’t know much about history

Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be.
—Sam Cooke, "Wonderful World"

Is knowing history a good thing? When Same Cooke sang "Wonderful World," a lot of high school teachers were horrified. What terrible things would happen if impressionable teens took Sam’s message to heart and stopped learning history, along with biology, science and French?

"Wonderful World" is 50 years old, and a lot has changed in the way we relate to history in that half century. In one sense, because of changes in mass communications, there no longer is history, only an ever speeding-up present. As a result, events get distorted and we lose proportion. During the Bush Administration, one would have thought that the only two important dates in the history of the world were the birth of Jesus and September 11. But the further we get from September 11, 2001, the less it is likely to be seen as a turning point in history.

Then there is the news cycle. Two weeks ago, it was Sarah Palin’s resignation. Then we had Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley. It looks like the “birthers,” those who deny that President Obama is an American, may still have a couple of weeks to run. After that, if things are slow, maybe we can revisit whether Brittany or Justin should get the kids. As the comedian Gilda Radner said, “It’s always something.”

And because there is constant need for the new thing, what is important often disappears down the memory hole. Yesterday’s news, aka, History. Take an example. During the past eight years, the United States engaged in the systematic torture of other human beings. We knew about it. We are a democracy, which means that we, as citizens, have a responsibility. It was illegal, and, more important, it was immoral. History does “teach us” that precedents are important. And yet, there is unlikely to be any accountability, except for a handful of low level soldiers who have been scapegoated by our shameless former leaders. It is yesterday’s news, time to move on. And President Obama wants to “look forward,” a sentiment that I imagine most criminals wish he would apply to them.

Bye-bye history. We can’t dwell on the past.

Vanished history has often been replaced by personal and group history. This is another source of trouble. Up until the 1960’s, American History, as written, was essentially a story of the triumph of good over evil, of freedom and democracy. It was essentially the history of white Europeans, and unfortunate realities such as slavery, genocide against Native American peoples and the overthrow of various governments were either airbrushed out, minimized or treated as a positive good for those who had been victimized. Just think about how terrible life would have been for the slaves if they had stayed in Africa. And the lucky Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Filipinos. Thank God we saved them from life under the horrible Spaniards and gave them freedom.

This buffed-up history may not have been very accurate, but it did give our country a common and hopeful story, one that even the victims were expected to buy into. And many did. But there was a big problem with this approach. It allowed us to pretend that everything was great, and that any discussion of real problems was pessimism or the work of people trying to undermine the country. As President Reagan said, we were the “Shining City on a Hill.”

This upbeat version of our history also provided a club for political reactionaries to beat their opponents over the head with. Yes, there were problems in the past, but they weren’t so bad, and these solutions, such as equal opportunity and social spending, are even worse. A favorite in this category was the Young Republican Political Science student who said, “Sure slavery was bad, but so is affirmative action. That is why we have to get rid of both of them.”

This history, which can be called the “White People, Still No. 1” version of the past, began to bump into two new trends in the 1960s. One such trend consisted of “popular” history, that is, history in which “ordinary” people rather than leaders are at the center of events. The best example is Howard Zinn’s "A People’s History of the United States" (1980).

The second trend was history rooted in group identity. Group identity history blossomed starting in the 1960s. Black Studies, Women’s Studies, Jewish Studies, Gay Studies, and others became part of most college curricula, and the entire study of history began to evolve. In many ways, these histories were overdue corrections to the whitewashed versions that most people over the age of 60 grew up with as students.

But – and it is a very big “but” – this approach to history has had some very bad outcomes. The focus of almost all identity history is on grievances, victimization and the remembrance of bad things done to us. Oh, and, by the way, here is why our group has had a glorious past that is better than your group’s. The saddest example of this use of history was the absurd competition between African Americans and Jews over who was history’s greatest victim.

This use of history is a trap, and it is a dangerous trap. Victimization is in fashion. In the United States, the current political environment, especially since the election of President Obama, has produced the extraordinary spectacle of mass white victimization. The Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh and a group of cable television hosts are seeking to convince white people that they are the victims of a system now rigged in favor of racial minorities and the poor.

Left unstated is any reference to reality or to the supposed Golden Age, an age in which there was massive discrimination in employment, housing and just about anything else you can name against African Americans, other people of color, women and gay people. This discrimination was often reinforced by both the threat and reality of violence. In those days, it took a real effort for white men to fail, and, even if they did, they could still look down on the others.

This version of history is now in direct conflict with much of what is taught in identity-based college courses. These courses focus on “white privilege, ” actually white male privilege, and on the bad things that were done to (insert our group’s name here.) While “facts” may be accurately assembled, they are assembled selectively. And they have the very negative effect of reinforcing our group’s grievances, unique identity and separateness from the larger community. (It would be interesting to find a group or nationality that presents its history in a balanced way that reflects all of the deficiencies of our species. If such a history exists, I have never heard of it. Instead, the subtext of most group or nation focused versions of history is “hooray for us, and screw you.”)

The Virgin Islands has an unusual version of the history problem. It is complicated, but can be summed up in two competing sets of attitudes: an obsession with past grievances by some portion of the majority (“born here”) and an indifference to history by part of a more recently arrived minority (“we’re here now, get over it.”). On the sidelines are those who do not fit into either of the two core groups. As former Secretary of State James Baker once said, these groups “don’t have a dog in this fight.” And overlaying everything are high levels of income inequality.

What difference does any of this make? The answer is: a lot. Communities are like organizations. The more people pull together, trust one another, and share common goals, the better off everyone is. And basic beliefs and norms ripple into all areas of life, the workplace, schools and daily interactions. These beliefs and norms explain a lot about why things are the way they are, for better and worse.

On a certain level President Obama is right in wanting to look forward. If you are obsessed with the past, it is almost impossible to move ahead. Black Nationalism has demonstrated this unhappy reality. But being obsessed with the past and dealing with it are two very different things. In Part II, I’ll explore some of the real-life consequences of misusing history and apply them to organizational and work life in the Territory.