Rewriting history by decree

This is an open letter. To see the list of signatories: click here 

The White House has declared war on critical thinking in history, particularly national history. On March 27th, the U.S. President signed an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” Adopting a framework that blatantly discounts the diversity of past experiences, while pathologizing inclusive histories and the people who produce and inhabit them, the executive order describes any reference to racial or gender inequalities in history as “corrosive.” 

Stated bluntly, the decree aims to eliminate any mention of inequality, and in general any form of critical history, from monuments and memory institutions under U.S. federal government control. To history, it applies the hackneyed-yet-dangerous refrain that naming inequality is “ideological,” while ignoring it is “objective and factual.” The edict envisions weaponizing the budget in order to purge the Smithsonian Institution and its museums of “inappropriate ideology.” The principal institutions affected are the American Art Museum, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the American Women’s History Museum.  

The section of the executive order regarding the Smithsonian follows in the footsteps of other similar orders, including a recent one (“Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”) on the necessary reinstatement of patriotic education in elementary and secondary schools. Among other things, the latter calls for the return to teaching based on an “inspiring” and “ennobling” presentation of the United States’ founding principles and a celebration of “America’s greatness and history.” 

In both cases, the goal is to silence or subvert the facts so that they may be marshalled in service to a particular vision of the nation and the past. We are not simply witnessing the censorship of certain interpretations of history, but the erasure of curricula and even facts themselves. Doing so entails lying by omission or distortion, and by obliterating the space for rigorous scholarly debate. Historical truth, which the decree unambiguously invokes, is compromised by President Trump’s attempted erasure of racialized and marginalized peoples from narratives of American history. This perspective runs counter to both the values of civic education and the ethics of historical scholarship. 

These distortions not only warp the narrative arc of American history; they also shape the country’s landscape by materially inscribing upon it the racial hierarchies of the past. Confederate monuments, which President Trump is keen to restore, do more than simply glorify a mythologized past: they both embody and perpetuate differentials of power. The effects of this power are felt–by design–by African Americans, who are already marginalized within the United States.  

These decrees are being adopted amidst a wave of attacks on the funding, governance and independence of American universities. Thus, not only must we contend with the assault on the very possibility of conducting independent historical research, but also with the US government’s interference in public history institutions and national historical narratives. Added to this is the elimination of grants and scholarships, including the suspension of Fulbright scholarships, leaving students and researchers stranded and in positions of financial precarity. Risk-averse universities are now cancelling talks by speakers deemed controversial for fear of reprisals, as in the case of New York University, or are acceding to new measures intended to limit the nature and scope of classroom instruction, as in the case of Columbia University. This constitutes specific and directed attacks on academic freedom. 
 

In the United States, the historical community has organized in response to these attacks. On March 13th, thirty-five historical associations, including the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, issued a joint statement condemning “recent efforts to censor historical content on federal government websites,” including directives that “insidiously prioritize narrow ideology over historical research, historical accuracy, and the actual experiences of Americans.” 

Let us be clear: the Trump administration’s overall approach to the discipline of history is committed to stripping the United States’ national narrative of all inclusivity and nuance, chiefly to serve the interests of an authoritarian political project. This project is reminiscent of that put in place by Vladimir Putin over the last 20 years through “a whole series of measures outlining the contours of a veritable ‘politics of history’ that has become increasingly aggressive over time,” according to Nicolas Werth, historian and director of research CNRS (France). And yet, one of the twentieth century’s great lessons is that resorting to truncated, partial, one-sided, and distorted narratives represents a powerful weapon when placed in the hands of propagandists and warmongers who have led humanity to physical, material, and cultural destruction. 

Does it bear stating that history, like all knowledge, does not develop by decree? Nor does it belong to any one entity, least of all the state. Rather, it is developed through debate, discussion, and dialectic, fuelled by reflexivity, doubt, and an awareness of our limitations. Adopting professional and methodological standards developed in an independent and reflexive environment, insulated from external political pressures, are among the historical profession’s major achievements. It is from this self-aware position, one that is constantly being negotiated, that history can provide well-founded knowledge, establish relationships with museums and other spaces of learning, and, of course, foster democratic debate. The latter, alongside critical thinking, are the most important achievements of our profession. The historical community in Québec and Canada is a testament to this: though no stranger to debate and controversy, it nevertheless remains collegial, characterized by a rigorous professional practice and respectful dialogue. 

The current situation in the United States represents a direct attack on the fundamental principles underlying the production and study of history. Although Canada and Québec have, to date, remained relatively unaffected, neither is safe from the violent lurch towards authoritarianism given the reactionary elements within our midst. In the middle of an election campaign, it would be useful to hear politicians stress the importance of academic freedom full-stop as well as the relevance of historical studies, no matter the subject or the perspective. We are deeply worried about the resurgence of this brand of thinking that fundamentally threatens freedom. President Trump’s recent decree regarding the Smithsonian Institution is a case in point, championing critical narratives that glorify the powerful all the while denying the very power relations that underlie questions of race and gender.  

History is a democratic and pluralist practice that seeks to empower individuals through knowledge. Yet its very foundations are made vulnerable by the current threats, which equate knowledge with insanity and nuance with incompetence. In the face of these aspersions, our response is unambiguous: neither knowledge nor nuance are an admission of weakness. On the contrary, they allow us to translate the complexities of our lived experiences and free us from ignorance.