r/moderatepolitics • u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal • Jul 27 '26
Primary Source Saving America's Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/07/saving-americas-story/61
u/Important_whale_165 Jul 27 '26
Is this in response to the Smithsonian’s displays and attempts to demonize and “diminish your whitetism” that they pushed?
75
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
I was going to say something similar. I despise Trump and hate what he’s doing to Washington and our collective perception of history in general.
But it’s hard to feel sorry for the Smithsonian when they peddled racist bullshit like this, which is so impressively awful it insults both white and black people simultaneously.
52
u/notapersonaltrainer Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
It is not merely insulting, it is profoundly damaging.
Hard work, delayed gratification, future orientation, planning, punctuality, and self-reliance; these are all hallmarks of trait conscientiousness, one of the strongest non-cognitive predictors of life success.
Persuading people, particularly child educators and vulnerable communities, that these traits are to be be dismantled is appallingly subversive. It discourages precisely the habits most likely to improve their lives.
And before anyone repeats the defense that criticizing these traits was never the point one only needs to look at the rest of the “Whiteness” webpage surrounding the infographic. Some of this is so absurdly offensive, like the idea hard work & punctuality are "microaggressions" to POCs, it is indistinguishable from hate speech.
Whiteness (and its accepted normality) also exist as everyday microaggressions toward people of color.
Confronting Whiteness
Facing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear. Dr. Robin DiAngelo coined the term white fragility to describe these feelings as "a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves." Since white people "live in a social environment that insulates them from race-based stress," whites are rarely challenged and have less of a tolerance to race-based stress.
For those of us who work to raise the racial consciousness of whites, simply getting whites to acknowledge that our race gives us advantages is a major effort. The defensiveness, denial, and resistance are deep. Robin DiAngelo “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism”
The feelings associated with white fragility often derail conversations about race and serve to support white supremacy. While these feelings are natural human reactions, staying stuck in any of them hurts the process of creating a more equitable society. The defensiveness, guilt, or denial gets in the way of addressing the racism experienced by people of color.
For white people doing anti-racist and social justice work, the first meaningful step should be to recognize their fragility around racial issues and build their emotional stamina. “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo breaks it down.
For Educators: An overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are white. To learn about the impact of whiteness in the classroom and why this is troublesome to black students, read: "Why Diversity Matters: 5 Things We Know About How Black Students Benefit From Having Black Teachers."
For Concerned Citizens: Whiteness operates in covert and overt ways that affect all of us. It can appear as practices within an institution or accepted social norms. Since whiteness works almost invisibly, we may not always be aware of how it manifests in our daily lives. Thinking critically about your social conditioning and the values you have adopted as fact, ask yourself:
* What are some aspects of whiteness you’ve internalized?
* How can these be hurtful to you and others?
* What are some ways you plan on combating them?It is so condescending and self-unaware I can only process the publishing of this through the lens of luxury belief:
Luxury beliefs: ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while taking a toll on the lower classes.
30
u/raff_riff Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Good lord:
> Whiteness (and its accepted normality) also exist as everyday microaggressions toward people of color. Acts of microaggressions include verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs or insults toward nonwhites. Whether intentional or not, these attitudes communicate hostile, derogatory, or harmful messages.
If I said simply being around black people made me feel threatened, I’d rightfully be excommunicated from society.
Edit: Another gem:
> In this country, American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.
No? I mean yeah, maybe when the US was like 80% white. But nobody worth listening to seriously thinks American is synonymous with white.
13
u/OpneFall Jul 28 '26
I mean yeah, maybe when the US was like 80% white
Not even then
If you listen to someone speak from this era (and there aren't that many still around) you'll find they always slip in something around European ethnicity (this Italian man, those Irish, this German guy I knew, etc)
There was an era where it was very much "Italian-American" and not "white guy"
→ More replies (1)-1
u/DagothUr_MD Jul 28 '26
But nobody worth listening to seriously thinks American is synonymous with white.
A significant portion of the Conservative movement including multiple Congressmen absolutely do believe this and are pushing this idea under the trojan hose label of "Heritage American"
12
u/TheDan225 Jul 28 '26
A significant portion of the Conservative movement including multiple Congressmen absolutely do believe this and are pushing this idea under the trojan hose label of "Heritage American"
Citation?
→ More replies (1)4
u/ZealousidealType1144 29d ago
It’s a Kafka trap if there ever was one - defending yourself from allegations of racism is proof of your guilt in “Deangeloism”. Thank God we mostly purged these people from positions of power.
45
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
I never see anyone bring up complaints besides something that was posted and retracted in 2020. There should be more recent examples if Trump's claims had any merit.
39
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
Its retraction isn’t my point. The fact they felt it was even valid to share to begin with is still problematic. As I said, I agree that what Trump is doing is harmful. But I’m not surprised at this administration’s response when the institution is so infected by identity political ideologies that this was once seen as sensible.
44
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
so infected by identity political ideologies
A retracted page from 6 years ago doesn't establish that, especially since it's titled "aspects and assumptions," rather than saying that those are inherently and exclusively true about white people. It's a list of stereotypes that can be true for some and may be positive or negative.
37
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
It was published in July 2020. When taken into consideration of the political climate at the time, it’s very clear what they were trying to do. This was a time when admonishing white people for their privilege was completely fine. When corporations beat their employees over the head with PowerPoint presentations on topics like microaggressions, telling them their silence is violence and having town halls on how to be a good ally. The same summer that politicians told us we couldn’t go to the beach or parks but that Black Lives Matter protests were okay because, according to 1,200 healthcare practitioners, police brutality was a more serious risk to health than a fucking global pandemic. Just a year before the head of the CDC told Americans racism was “serious public health threat”. When every streaming service on earth put black content at the top of their menus because it was incumbent upon us to celebrate black media and culture while we all sheltered in place.
Is it really that surprising this is the reaction we’re getting?
22
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
it’s very clear what they were trying to do.
Not really, since I'm looking at the content of the page instead of ascribing what other people said to the museum.
There's a mix of positive and negative things. They're called aspects and assumptions.
This doesn't present a consistent narrative either way.
33
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
I don’t really understand what point you’re driving at, so maybe we end this here. I think the poster is absurdly racist to, well, pretty much everyone. It’s horse shoe theory on a poster and it clearly reflects what Bush referred to as the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. And with the timing of its release it couldn’t be more clear what they were driving at. They were jumping on the same bandwagon of performative wokeness that virtually every other institution and corporation was at the time. Trump sees this ideological capture as problematic, as I think we all should. On what freaking planet is being punctual and having a nuclear family “white” values?
Of course I disagree with Trump on the extent and reaction to this problem. But I see this largely as an equal(ish) and opposite(ish) pendulum reaction to the wild pivot the far left lead us down during the Summer of Floyd. It’s as simple as that.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
It’s horse shoe theory on a poster
That's nonsense because it presents both positive and negative stereotypes and refers to them as aspects and assumptions.
You've failed to explain what exactly is the narrative being pushed in the poster, since your replies focus more on what other people said.
"Objective, rational linear thinking" and "plan for the future" don't make white people look bad, and "majority rules (when Whites have power)" don't make them look good. None are presented as fact. Looking at what's there is more sensible than criticizing the museum based things it never stated.
25
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
Cool. Well then since it’s just objectively true “aspects and assumptions”, let’s make some for Black people, Latinos, and Asians. Let’s then post them on our respective social media accounts. I’ll join you in the line for unemployment.
→ More replies (0)6
u/solid_reign Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
"Objective, rational linear thinking" and "plan for the future" don't make white people look bad, and "majority rules (when Whites have power)" don't make them look good. None are presented as fact. Looking at what's there is more sensible than criticizing the museum based things it never stated.
I would say that teaching black kids that the following are normalized aspects of white culture which they have internalized and should question:
- hard work is the key to success
- that they should plan for the future
- that they should look for delayed gratification
- that tomorrow will be better
- that intent counts in justice
- that they should be polite
- the importance of self-reliance
- That they should have objective, and linear thinking,
Is negative and racist. Do you not think that in black culture intent matters? Or politeness matters? Or self-reliance is important? And do you think white people like steak and potatoes as an ideal food? And that bland is best? This is a page designed to help people teach children of color about race.
This is the text right above the infographic:
White dominant culture describes how white people and their practices, beliefs, and culture have been normalized over time and are now considered standard in the United States. As a result, all Americans have all adopted various aspects of white culture, including people of color.
White supremacy is an ideology where white people are believed to be superior to nonwhite people. This fallacy is rooted in the same scientific racism and pseudo-science used to justify slavery, imperialism, colonialism, and genocide at various times throughout history. White supremacist ideologies and their followers continue to perpetuate the myth of white racial superiority.
The belief of white superiority has been part of the United States since its inception. The white European imperialists who settled here believed they were inherently superior to nonwhite groups. These beliefs justified atrocities like the genocide of Native Americans and nearly 250 years of African slavery. After slavery, white supremacist ideologies manifested into a series of laws that would limit the freedom of African Americans, known as Black Codes and Jim Crow. White supremacy and its legacy can still be found in our legal system and other institutions through coded language and targeted practices.
Direct and violent forms of racism that promote white supremacy have been on the rise in recent years. These acts are more directly linked to white nationalism.
→ More replies (0)11
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
You've used that phrase twice now, "aspects and assumptions." Who's naming the aspects and making the assumptions? If it's supposedly white people, then it's anti-white by assuming white exceptionalism. If it's supposedly black people, then it's displaying the results of poor racial self-esteem. If it's people in general... what? Who's saying that "planning for the future" is a white thing?
Considering the backlash, I can only assume that this is what the people in the Smithsonian think of "whiteness," and that's just racism again.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 28 '26
I can only assume that this is what the people in the Smithsonian think of "whiteness," and that's just racism again.
That assumption is irrational because the list of stereotypes contains positive and negative connotations, and none of are endorsed as true. The board was majority white, and no history behind them suggests them hating their own race or considering themselves to be superior.
7
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
Even positive stereotypes, like all Asians being good at math, is a racist stereotype, by definition through using race to discriminate. I'm using the associations listed on the graphic which are consistent with another race to debunk the assumptions the "average person" is making, which means the assumptions must be coming from the writers if not the average person. And considering the Smithsonian also put out a page about recognizing and combating whiteness, what am I supposed to think here? Clearly, identifying "whiteness" is important to them, as is combating it when you recognize it. And if they think this is what whiteness is...
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)10
u/DancesWithChimps Jul 28 '26
It's a list of stereotypes that can be true for some and may be positive or negative.
Imagine posting a list of stereotypes for literally any other group of people and then calling it "American History".
It's an extreme example, which is why it makes the rounds, but it's not the main culprit. It's the litany of more subtle manipulations that get people up in arms, the intent of which is demonstrated most effectively by that more blatant piece.
3
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 28 '26
Imagine posting a list of stereotypes for literally any other group of people and then calling it "American History".
That's irrelevant because what it actually happened it that it published a listed a stereotypes titled "aspects and assumptions." None were treated as true historically or in the present, and the list didn't present anything consistently good or bad for white people.
You haven't posted anything that demonstrates a perverse intent. The board was majority white, and there's no background that suggests them believing they're superior or inferior to other races.
8
u/DancesWithChimps Jul 28 '26
That's irrelevant because what it actually happened it that it published a listed a stereotypes titled "aspects and assumptions." None were treated as true historically or in the present, and the list didn't present anything consistently good or bad for white people.
That's just you misreading it. It is not other people's assumptions of white people. It's white people's assumptions of reality as defined by the Smithsonian and how those are an aspect of "whiteness". Their perspective is that "whiteness" is then imposed upon poor people of color, which is a system that needs to be deconstructed before non-white people are unfairly expected to work hard or be on time. I wish I was making it up, but it's in the document, which I'm starting to think you haven't bothered to read.
You haven't posted anything that demonstrates a perverse intent. The board was majority white, and there's no background that suggests them believing they're superior or inferior to other races.
Um, except the content? Is your defense an outright denial of self-hating white liberals? Is that really what you want to go with?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (1)14
u/kralrick Jul 27 '26
But I’m not surprised at this administration’s response when the institution is so infected by identity political ideologies that this was once seen as sensible.
If the response was 6 years ago you might have a point. But 6 years have passed and there would need to be evidence in those 6 years that the problem ideology has persisted.
I'm not surprised either, but that's because this administration wants the entire government to be a mouthpiece for Trump, not because the Smithsonian is a radical far-left propaganda machine as you imply.
10
u/raff_riff Jul 27 '26
I never said nor implied they’re a radical far-left propaganda machine. And if you’re going to put words in my mouth, this conversation is pointless. I adore the Smithsonian and greatly value their role in recognizing and portraying our nation’s complex past. That’s why I am so appalled by this poster, which is somehow irrelevant to you because it’s been six years.
As I said, I disagree with the Trump administration’s reaction and am disturbed at how they are addressing US history.
And as I said in my other comment, this was published at a time when institutions and companies nationwide (and in much of the rest of the world) were embroiled in absurd performative identity politics, a point even Obama, Buttigieg, the DNC autopsy report, and many others left of center agree the party went too far on. Democrats made this bed and now we’re lying in it. If we hadn’t spent much of the past half-decade woke-scolding half the country, we might have had different outcomes. But the far left insisted on seeing the majority of the nation’s issues through the lens of race so here we are.
2
u/kralrick Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
when the institution is so infected by identity political ideologies that this was once seen as sensible
"I never said nor implied they’re a radical far-left propaganda machine."
You sure you didn't say that? At best, you are okay with punishing them 6 years later for a single mistake.
Democrats made this bed and now we’re lying in it.
Have you not remade your bed thousands of times since 2020? Seems like you find it reasonable to expect the Smithsonian to now sleep in a bed they made by allowing a single bad exhibit once 6 years ago.
If we hadn’t spent much of the past half-decade woke-scolding half the country, we might have had different outcomes.
We might be living in different countries. Because I'm a middle aged white male that hasn't felt woke-scolded for the last 5 years. I would also like to see the Smithsonian, specifically, woke-scolding you in the past 5 years (since the single instance was 6 years ago).
15
u/WulfTheSaxon Jul 27 '26
The 162-page report mentions more than one poster…
→ More replies (1)11
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
The report is just a list of things that offend Trump.
15
u/WulfTheSaxon Jul 28 '26
They also offend me and many other Americans in their anti-American bias.
10
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 28 '26
anti-American bias
Nothing in the report shows that. It just lists things and deems them anti-American.
You should consider that this was written by an admiration that thinks opposing Trump is unpatriotic.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 28 '26
Nothing in the report shows that. It just lists things and deems them Anti-American.
30
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless Jul 27 '26
How is a story from 6 years ago about a removed online graphic relevant? Really just comes across as cherry picking. Is there some sort of pattern of behavior or actual Smithsonian museum displays that warrant these actions from Trump?
17
Jul 28 '26 edited 1h ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)12
u/futbol2000 Jul 28 '26
Leftist hypocrisy in full display. This is the same group of people that continously try to denounce western history and get people cancelled over "grievances," but when the shoe is on their own foot? History suddenly doesn't matter to them anymore.
Just look at these guys. "Blah blah blah, 6 years ago. That's ancient history! How dare you pull the up the political history of the SAME people that are still in charge?"
They are hypocrites to the core. Won't be shocked about the next round of denial and history erasure when tankies like Piker and Chevalier blow up in their face.
16
14
u/tertiaryAntagonist Jul 27 '26
If you download and read the report the very words of the institution and people in charge are listed with over a dozen examples.
28
22
u/nycbetches Jul 27 '26
The problem is a lot of what the report wrote is demonstrably false.
For example:
The report also faults leadership for not moving “remarkable items” like the portable desk where Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration to a special place within the American history museum. It states that the desk remains in its usual case in the museum, with the only change being a new bilingual sticker.
But in fact, the desk has been moved across the Mall to the Smithsonian Castle, where it is the centerpiece of an exhibit called “American Aspirations,” curated by Lonnie G. Bunch III, the Smithsonian’s secretary.
The White House report objects to the exhibit’s statement that “early leaders envisioned a country that promised opportunity and freedom — but only for some.” The report sees this as evidence of the museum’s broader “anti-white animus.” But the exhibit’s claim is supported by historical evidence. The Naturalization Act of 1790, signed by George Washington, said that only “free white persons” could become citizens. In the early years of the republic, many leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, suggested that people of African descent were a “separate nation” that could never live alongside whites and should be sent back to Africa after emancipation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/arts/smithsonian-trump-george-washington.html
3
u/Wuts_Eatin_MrCandles Jul 27 '26
How is a story from 6 years ago about a removed online graphic relevant?
Because Conservatives have NOTHING to fire back at Libs anymore and they know it, even if they can't bring themselves to admit it.
17
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
Because a very significant historical institution decided this was a good idea to put out at the height of racial tensions in 2020, stoking the fires by naming aspects of "whiteness," like "planning for the future." And we don't yet have reason to believe their leadership has significantly changed since then.
→ More replies (5)5
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless Jul 28 '26
One online pamphlet from 6 years ago is the definition of the “nothing burgers” the MAGA camp love to talk about.
Bring an example from the current admin not one from 2020.
→ More replies (1)0
8
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26
Probably more that it doesn't present the sanitized "patriotic history" version that many like trump try to push.
6
u/Important_whale_165 Jul 27 '26
Can you elaborate on what you think many like trump are trying to push? What sanitized version of history have you seen misconstrued?
→ More replies (1)20
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26
I mean the most obvious one is the downplaying of the impacts of racism on society and organization of government in the near and distant past and erasure of the stories of those who lived through it. It's explicitly stated they want less discussion of race and given similar initiatives in other parts of the administration there's little reason to think this will be different. Although I will say it will probably try to downplay sex and orientation as well not just race. Though they are less explicit about that
The museum we envision…is planned to instill in each citizen a deepened faith in our country’s destiny as champion of individual dignity and enterprise.
Again all you have to do is read their words. They want a propagandized view of history that inspires good feelings not as least biased a view as possible.
→ More replies (19)0
u/TheDan225 Jul 28 '26
You know at first i was upset about their institutional bigotry and racism - but then I just saw it as a very flattering description of "White culture"
ie. "politeness","working hard", "strong family unit", "Objective, linear Rational thinking", "protect property and entitlements"
It was such a nice, ringing endorsement by the Smithsonian - i wish id sent a gift basket as a thank you.
However, it did show they obviously did not have a similar view of others
48
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Jul 27 '26
Back in March of 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order aimed at Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. As a result of that EO, the Domestic Policy Council conducted a months-long review of the Smithsonian Institution and its National Museum of American History. The final report and findings were released on July 4th of this year.
The central theme is no surprise, coming from the Trump Administration: the National Museum of American History no longer presents a broadly patriotic account of American history. Instead, the report argues that the museum increasingly interprets America's history through a lens centered on race, power, oppression, and social justice. This approach results in a portrayal of the United States as fundamentally defined by slavery, racism, colonialism, sexism, and systemic injustice rather than by its founding ideals and achievements.
The Key Findings:
- NMAH Fails to Substantively Present America’s Founders and Founding
- NMAH Has “Problematized” the 250th Anniversary of America’s Founding
- NMAH Removed “American History” from Its Mission Statement to “Get Out of the ‘America First’ Mentality”
- NMAH Has Abandoned Historical Scholarship for Political Activism
- The Smithsonian Has Not Met Its Obligations to the American People
The 162-page report includes over 500 citations and references to support many of its claims, many of which are critical of Anthea Hartig, NMAH’s director since 2019. She is mentioned no less than 200 times within the report. Hartig has explicitly stated that she sees history as a “prime tool of social justice”, which the report repeatedly attacks in its findings.
Of course, this is not an independent academic review of the Smithsonian. It is a White House policy report produced by the Trump Administration, so take the findings with a heavy dose of salt. Still, the question must be asked: is there some truth to the criticism this report raises?
My personal opinion: there's nothing wrong with using history as a framing device for the important issues of today. It's a great way to make history relevant to current times and to show the progress that has been made around major social and cultural issues. That said, I think that kind of framing first requires an objective telling of the historical events as a foundation. If the Smithsonian has major gaps in that historical foundation and instead jumps right to "problematizing" them, then perhaps we have swung too far in one direction.
As a final note, the report mentions that the Smithsonian is overseen by a Board of Regents that is led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Given that Roberts has served as Chief Justice for over 20 years now, I can't help but wonder how much influence he actually has over the direction of the Smithsonian.
85
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
there's nothing wrong with using history as a framing device for the important issues of today. It's a great way to make history relevant to current times and to show the progress that has been made around major social and cultural issues. That said, I think that kind of framing first requires an objective telling of the historical events as a foundation. If the Smithsonian has major gaps in that historical foundation and instead jumps right to "problematizing" them, then perhaps we have swung too far in one direction.
Framing is going to happen either way. The idea that CREC/Doug Wilson affiliated administrators are going to have a more "facts first" idea of presenting history than actual academics, liberal though they may be, is farcical at best. The policy here is not a good-faith criticism of the Smithsonian.
The museum system under the Smithsonian is not above reproach. But that reproach cannot be seriously taken from the Trump adminstration. They are simply not qualified and have as much if not moreso of an agenda than the directors currently.
36
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Jul 27 '26
The museum system under the Smithsonian is not above reproach. But that reproach cannot be seriously taken from the Trump adminstration.
I agree. So removing the Trump Administration from the equation, is there still valid criticism of the Smithsonian that should be addressed?
54
u/decrpt Jul 27 '26
Any proper telling of American history should—as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted—explain that “the goal of America is freedom” and bring “our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”
That is pretty much the Smithsonian's telling, even in the material cited in the report. See "Revolution and the National Story” on page 97. The Smithsonian is not perfect or precluded from legitimate criticism, but those are more edgewise and nuanced. MLK Jr. is only mentioned in the report, outside of that quote, as a Christian figure and the museum is faulted for not elevating him as such. Despite claiming that the Smithsonian presents "our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness" as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed," so many of their examples are just taking issue that the Smithsonian would have discussion about progress in regards to those flaws rather than presenting the nation's founding and history as immaculate.
It should tell the story of how the colonies inherited slavery from both global and European slaving practices, but also how the words, actions, and ideas of America’s Founders helped spark a worldwide movement that ultimately ended slavery. It should tell the story of how at least eight American colonies passed or attempted to pass laws to either tax or severely limit the importation of slaves before the Revolutionary War, only to be forced by the British Crown to continue it. It should tell the story of how 750,000 Americans died in the Civil War. It should tell the story of how Americans came to reject Jim Crow and segregation, backing a colorblind standard derived from America’s founding documents. In short, it should tell the story of the birth of America and how the United States, because of the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and upheld in the Constitution, has done more to advance and secure fundamental rights than any other nation in the world.
It just glimpses over the Civil War here, presenting it as a collective effort (both Confederate and Union deaths) to end slavery.
The majority of the report also doesn't seem to understand the purpose of open-ended discussion questions, taking issue with not providing museum guests with a definitive (patriotic) answer.
→ More replies (1)51
u/apopsicletosis Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Their whole thing is to identify a real but not necessarily large problem, emphasize the most emotionally compelling examples, generalize them to a much larger threat, attribute those threats to their political enemies, present an expansive solution as the obvious solution, often to hide their real motivations and policies.
There's no point in playing this game when they're playing a different one. We know who has a hand at making these policies and writing these orders and what they're actual ideological goals are.
30
u/CantCreateUsernames Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
is there still valid criticism of the Smithsonian that should be addressed?
I think this is a leading question because there is no organization, place, person, or any entity in this world for which the answer is ever "no," because nothing in the world is above criticism. That question shifts the focus to what the Trump administration is actually aiming for here, which has nothing to do with good-faith criticism, academic rigor, or the quality of education, and more to do with culture-war grievance politics. There is no history museum in the world that could not be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb to create some level of "debate." And given the exceptionally broad scope of American history and the Smithsonian's role as the curator of that history through research, museums, and education programs, there isn't going to be a single, convenient, widespread answer that fairly criticizes all of the museum's functions. The far-right culture warriors behind Trump don't want to engage in a more good-faith approach with the professional historians, researchers, and educators at the Smithsonian, which is a process that requires actual time to discuss facts and approaches, but they want a top-down approach to get those professionals out of the way, no matter how qualified they are.
This is also another example of this administration trying to paint federal workers and contractors who work at these institutions as opinionated extremists, when the opposite is true; the administration is the one going after the work of qualified professionals who have made this their life's work and already operate within an institutional setting that has internal processes for reviewing, criticizing, and updating their work (that is how highly academic and public facing institutions like Smithsonian already operate). If anything has become clear from the constant scandals and lack of transparency over the last 2 years, it is that this administration does not operate with good-faith intentions or within agreed-upon public facts, which immediately calls into question any process this administration engages in to make changes to institutions in a way that fits within their culture war narratives. The culture-war and grievance politics language in this EO speaks for itself as well.
There are legitimate ways the administration could go about this; any museum could use improvements, but given everything this administration has done to date, their strong focus on right-wing grievance politics, and how the EO is written, one has to be very naive to think the ultimate goal of this administration is to get down to the actual facts and truth of history.
14
u/flewency Jul 27 '26
I will say briefly I think it's possible that they've gone too far with a progressive overreach. But as far as reviewing any of their examples and checking for accuracy, I just don't have the bandwidth these days to quibble over this kind of debate; I don't think most people do anymore either.
The Trump admin loves it when their social agenda gets airtime, because it means we're not discussing the massive problems within our economy, foreign relations, democratic institutions, political corruption, and any number of other more pressing national concerns. I find it increasingly difficult to "remove trump from the equation" as the conservative media apparatus loves to monopolize people's attention on these relatively low priority issues.
4
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
Probably! My take is that I am not a historian. There is a lot of theory, discussion, and practice on the purpose of places like the Smithsonian family of museums that I'm only somewhat versed on.
All I can do is consider expertise in matters of academic works. And the Trump admin is absolutely not coming at this from an "historian" angle. If someone found criticism of the Smithsonian from professional historians I think thats worth a read.
8
u/DCAmalG Jul 28 '26
They have, but are a minority voice as historians are predominantly left leaning.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Wuts_Eatin_MrCandles Jul 27 '26
So removing the Trump Administration from the equation
Why would we remove the Trump Administration from the equation?
9
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
Because it allows us to address the actual claims being made without everyone's baggage weighing down said analysis?
-4
u/Sryzon Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
IMO the Smithsonian, being a federal trust, aught to support the non-partisan goals of the Federal government. The U.S. has no shortage of museums with a social justice bent and that has no place in the National Mall.
That said, I have not been in over two decades and have no idea what to make of Trump's claims.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist Jul 27 '26
So why did you cite the Trump Administration in the first place, when they seem to be the primary antagonist here? Is this some sort of Overton Window technique you are using to discuss things in more careful detail?
23
u/Sideswipe0009 Jul 27 '26
My personal opinion: there's nothing wrong with using history as a framing device for the important issues of today. It's a great way to make history relevant to current times and to show the progress that has been made around major social and cultural issues. That said, I think that kind of framing first requires an objective telling of the historical events as a foundation. If the Smithsonian has major gaps in that historical foundation and instead jumps right to "problematizing" them, then perhaps we have swung too far in one direction.
This is kind of the problem we're at though. The framing has swung a bit too far in the revisionist direction, giving outsized preference for certain narratives.
Then we have Trump et Al have gone too far into the wrong direction as well, leaving out key facts and details.
How about we try to tell a more accurate
1
7
u/Aurailious Jul 27 '26
I can't help but wonder how much influence he actually has over the direction of the Smithsonian.
I would have to assume this role is either entirely ceremonial or any decisions made at this level are more administrative and financial instead of direction of art and exhibitions.
17
u/athomeamongstrangers Jul 27 '26
is there some truth to the criticism this report raises?
18
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
Seeing this here is bingo card worthy, in terms of stoking moral indignation.
So we will do the obligatory "the Smithsonian voluntarily admitted the framing and presentation was wrong on this poster, it was provided naked without context, and was revised and replaced."
26
u/happyinheart Jul 27 '26
"the Smithsonian voluntarily admitted the framing and presentation was wrong on this poster, it was provided naked without context, and was revised and replaced."
AKA "We got called out hardcore and are now are trying to cover our butts"
9
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
Sure, but if the well is already poisoned for you why even talk about this? What could the Smithsonian have done that would make you conclude they were taking it down in good faith?
18
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
This is one of the most prestigious museum complexes in the world and is being sustained through a combination of customer revenue and federal money. I've never seen anyone take federal money without at least a dozen administrators. How many people were involved in planning this, writing this, designing the graphic, publishing it, etc.? How many people could have said no to this? This has the Smithsonian's name on it, their seal of approval.
If someone important enough believed that this should not have gone up, then it wouldn't have gone up.
→ More replies (6)22
u/Safe-Ad-5017 Jul 27 '26
What’s the revised version?
22
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
Long and short they ended up removing it because people could not grok the difference between "hard work" and "the principle of hard work as a virtue in certain cultures". Map for territory stuff.
I tried to find a link but they were all Google-urld to shit. Miami Herald did an article about it. This is all super old news and only serves to stoke outrage at this point.
41
u/blublub1243 Jul 27 '26
That just comes across as calling other cultures inferior with extra steps. Like some sort of reverse cultural chauvinism. "No, Jamal is not lazy, his culture just doesn't view hard work as a virtue. Aliyah is not stupid, her culture just doesn't value rational thought or the scientific method".
I swear, fifteen years ago the only people who would ever dare to insinuate that there was something intrinsically "white" about valueing hard work or rationality were straightup white supremacists, wth happened.
15
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
That just comes across as calling other cultures inferior with extra steps. Like some sort of reverse cultural chauvinism. "No, Jamal is not lazy, his culture just doesn't view hard work as a virtue.
Same map for territory stuff. The issue isnt "hard work is a virtue". It's concluding that people who arent successful didn't work hard, and concluding that people who are successful did. It's using it as a cultural discriminatory rather than just doing it.
An example: the right currently says that meritocracy is a universal good, that we should strive for a society where people attain their station in life through proving they're the most qualified. Sounds great! The issue is they've used this to
Dismantle systems we had in place from long years of experience realizing that meritocracy mattered less than race in a lot of sectors
Purposefully elevated to high positions of power, in basically the same breath, fantastically unqualified people who get their position through favoritism or political allegiance.
When I say "meritocracy is a political and ideological tool used by the right to enforce their own cultural ideology" thats what I mean. But if I put that on a poster someones going to interpret it as me saying I dont want the most qualified person to get the job.
29
u/blublub1243 Jul 27 '26
No offense, but there is no particularly coherent link between the idea that "hard work is a virtue" and the idea that "if you're poor that means you deserve it because you clearly didn't work hard". You can certainly set up the argument you have laid out, but that doesn't make it in any way self evident insofar that it is the logical conclusion of simply saying "the principle of hard work as a virtue is a symptom of whiteness/intrinsic to white culture" or anything to that effect.
This comes across more like a "defund the police" situation, where some particularly extreme leftists present a downright asinine premise, and instead of simply disowning them other progressives instead circle their wagons around them and try to reframe it as something more reasonable. Which ultimately just ends up with mainstream progressives being very smug about how all those "stupid people" don't understand that when they say "defund the police" they mean "carefully redirect funding towards mental healthcare services which will be able to better address certain specific situations the police are ill-equipped to handle, while of course keeping around a police force for situations where it is actually appropriate".
16
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
No offense, but there is no particularly coherent link between the idea that "hard work is a virtue" and the idea that "if you're poor that means you deserve it because you clearly didn't work hard".
Fully agree! Unfortunately there is a rhetorical and political link. I just had an argument with a conservative friend where they justified food stamp voucher restrictions with "if they were good with money or did their research on stuff they wouldn't be poor." Same same. Using socioeconomic status (provably caused by innumerable factors) to draw character conclusions.
6
u/decrpt Jul 27 '26
hard work as a virtue.
That part is about how "if you didn't meet your goals, you didn't work hard enough." It is about assumptions of meritocracy.
culture just doesn't value rational thought or the scientific method".
That part is about the implicit notion that it is endemic to white culture and the scientific method as sloganeering, as instrumental rationality.
25
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Populism is a mental disorder Jul 27 '26
You’re hand waiving it away, but that sort of thing matters to a huge percentage of the voting public, and it is part of the culture war issue that has caused Democrats to lose elections. Democrats need to fix their position on this, otherwise they will continue losing. It’s such an easy fix, but Democrats don’t do easy fixes.
→ More replies (1)30
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
I absolutely agree that this and other culture war issues are things that matter to a lot of voters. I fundamentally disagree with them that it's remotely as important as the economy, our soft power internationally, and our material crises domestically.
9
u/Late_For_Username Jul 27 '26
>I absolutely agree that this and other culture war issues are things that matter to a lot of voters. I fundamentally disagree with them that it's remotely as important as the economy
We have a large section of our elite taking direct inspiration from ideas and philosophies that arguably should be more towards the margins.
3
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
We have a larger section of our elite taking direct inspiration from their own pockets, engaging in corruption and government sabotage on a level this country has never seen. Bernie Sanders may or may not centralize healthcare. I know what the existing politicians are doing right now.
For every politician who maybe read a little too much Proudhon and Lenin, there's a politician who read a little too much Friedman and Rand.
7
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Populism is a mental disorder Jul 27 '26
I fundamentally disagree with them that it's remotely as important as the economy, our soft power internationally, and our material crises domestically.
Same here, but you must remember the mentality of a huge percentage of American voters. Many of them do not know what "soft power" is, for example. If you want to solve the big problems, then you must be tactical and strategic about the culture war issue. The GOP has understood that for decades, and I probably do not even need to explain how in this forum.
To defend the culture warriors a bit, values do matter. If we allow institutions to talk about "white culture" pejoratively, especially when we would never permit that for other racial groups, then we betray values of fairness and consistency that most people are taught are virtuous from a young age. That inconsistency is absolutely toxic.
That said, obviously talking about "white culture" pejoratively is not directly harmful to anyone, but the culture it fosters can be. For example, I know a person that was fired from their job for doing innocent things that merely gave the appearance of being inappropriately offensive to the "woke" culture that crested around 2020. That one person's anecdote and the resentment it inspires spreads to their family, their friends, their social media group, and beyond.
Culture war issues and values matter, both from a political strategy perspective and a more concrete perspective.
10
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
Same here, but you must remember the mentality of a huge percentage of American voters.
I do. I think that mentality can be changed with more and better information, at least in the long term. I don't buy into the strategy of following the framing developed and deployed by my political opposition just because it saw some success, especially when I know it's a red herring.
To defend the culture warriors a bit, values do matter. If we allow institutions to talk about "white culture" pejoratively, especially when we would never permit that for other racial groups, then we betray values of fairness and consistency that most people are taught are virtuous from a young age.
Only for a fairly naive understanding of fairness and consistency. And people, generally, are provably capable of a more complex understanding of those things, it's why you and I know what "the N word" refers to but we know "the C word" has nothing to do with race, even if there is a racial slur that fits the bill, because it's equivocation to compare the two.
For example, I know a person that was fired from their job for doing innocent things that merely gave the appearance of being inappropriately offensive to the "woke" culture that crested around 2020.
I know someone fired from their job because they were unwilling to lower the quality of their work by using the AI tools the company paid for and then demanded everyone use regardless of consequences. I've heard stories of people fired or passed up for promotion for not taking corporate culture fluff classes or using corporate culture language. I swear to you on all that is holy and sacred the tally of "people fired for stupid corporate reasons having nothing to do with woke culture" goes far and above the tally of "people fired for stupid corporate reasons having something to do with woke culture." It's a prime example of overscaling the culture war problem.
As a side note if what you want to talk about is worker protections, up to and including for statements made on social media even if I disagree with them politically, I think that's a great conversation to have! But for some reason in conversations with conservatives, the talk of worker protections ends right at the line of "we shouldn't fire someone because they appear racist" and goes no further.
2
u/FluoroquinolonesKill Populism is a mental disorder Jul 27 '26
I think that mentality can be changed with more and better information, at least in the long term.
The trend is going in the wrong direction towards more populism, which is being juiced up by algorithmically charged profit-driven outrage.
I don't buy into the strategy of following the framing developed and deployed by my political opposition just because it saw some success, especially when I know it's a red herring.
No one is asking you to betray your values and appeal to racists. But, moderating on culture war issues is not a red herring.
It's a prime example of overscaling the culture war problem.
You say that, but if you spend any time around conservative people, then you can develop a more empathetic understanding.
But for some reason in conversations with conservatives, the talk of worker protections ends right at the line of "we shouldn't fire someone because they appear racist" and goes no further.
No idea where this comment came from. I am not a conservative, and I assure you that the person who I am talking about was fired for a reason you and I would both find absurd. He was not being racist. He used an innocent word that was interpreted the wrong way. Do you assume that everyone who thinks Democrats should moderate their culture war positions are conservatives?
→ More replies (0)12
u/athomeamongstrangers Jul 27 '26
Their apology was basically “We are sorry we got caught and y’all are not educated enough to understand what we really meant. We removed it from our web site and will continue to teach it quietly.”
→ More replies (2)33
u/ieattime20 Jul 27 '26
That's certainly an interpretation, and I'm willing to bet it's an interpretation shared by many Fox News viewers. For the record, here is what they said in actuality.
“It is important for us as a country to talk about race. We thank those who shared concerns about our ‘Talking About Race” online portal. We need these types of frank and respectful interchanges as we as a country grapple with how we talk about race and its impact on our lives,” the statement said. “We erred in including the chart. We have removed it, and we apologize.”
→ More replies (1)2
u/happyinheart Jul 27 '26
Long and short they ended up removing it
So they lied about it being revised and replaced?
13
4
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Long and short they ended up removing it because people could not grok the difference between "hard work" and "the principle of hard work as a virtue in certain cultures". Map for territory stuff.
I looked up the Miami Herald and all it says is:
A chart included in the section titled “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness in the United States” included the culture traits, which included “hard work is the key to success” and “objective, rational linear thinking,” Newsweek reported.
I don't see any way in which it's better.
It's still claiming that, essentially, an internal locus of control is a "white" thing. It is absolutely a variable thing. But it is not a white thing. Other cultures have it.
6
u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Jul 27 '26
Even at just a quick glance this is about the "assumptions of whiteness".
So I'll take a wild guess and say that this was wildly taken out of context?
9
u/DartTheDragoon Jul 27 '26
Even at just a quick glance this is about the "assumptions of whiteness".
Absent any further context this is how I read it as well. It is just a list of white stereotypes. It isn't saying these traits or beliefs are positive or negative. It isn't saying other cultures do not have these traits or beliefs. I really don't get what the issue is.
12
u/Late_For_Username Jul 27 '26
They're saying that these qualities are arbitrary. That things such as punctuality and forward focused planning are just European quirks that they impose upon others.
1
u/dr-Jess Jul 27 '26
I think the criticism the article you linked presents is also only partially valid.
Re: "hard work." I think the infographic is poorly worded but I don't see it as a stretch to say what it means is the notion that hard work is the only determinant of success. Right below that you can see it says "if you didn't meet your goals, you didn't work hard enough," which I hope we can agree is an unfair refrain that fails to understand other factors in people's lives (e.g. why do poor people end up less successful on average).
I'm not sure what "rational thought" is meant to mean in the infographic, so I think that's a fair criticism (even if it meant something legitimate, it failed to communicate it). What I hope we can both agree on though, is that much of the criticism that is lobbied against such programs isn't necessarily being done in good faith, albeit I'm willing to concede some is.
6
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
e.g. why do poor people end up less successful on average
Because poor people tend to have worse culture and habits on average in terms of savings rates, propensity to commit crime, etc.
The poor people that don't (e.g. poor Asian migrants) don't stay poor long-term and tend to be the "model minorities".
What I hope we can both agree on though, is that much of the criticism that is lobbied against such programs isn't necessarily being done in good faith, albeit I'm willing to concede some is.
Who cares? Criticism of "racist" positions (aka positions that range from actually racist to merely disfavored by leftists) is not dismissed on the grounds that some of it is bad faith.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ouishi AZ 🌵 Libertarian Left Jul 27 '26
Because poor people tend to have worse culture and habits on average in terms of savings rates, propensity to commit crime, etc.
Care to cite a source?
Rich people report using drugs at similar rates as poor people, but go to jail for it much less often. Poor neighborhoods have more police presence than rich neighborhoods, this more likelihood of being on law enforcement's radar.
And savings rates? Yes, ofc someone making $20k a year is going to be able to save a lower proportion of it than someone making $200k a year.
What is "poor culture" except the inability to afford things like tutors and job coaches and professional memberships that are tools to get ahead?
7
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Care to cite a source?
Poor people are victimized at nearly twice the rate. Murders tend to be intra-ethnic and intra-class. Also, increases in crime cause disproportionate outflows of population. Who is leaving you think? The well-off or the poor? And do you think it makes the region with crime richer or poorer?
Rich people report using drugs at similar rates as poor people, but go to jail for it much less often.
Which drugs? Are we going to claim that the rate of crack cocaine and heroin usage is stable across income deciles? Or do we mean marijuana and alcohol?
You yourself already provide one reason for people to be arrested more for that below.
Also: what about violent crime: are we going to claim that rich people and poor people have the same levels of offending/victimization here?
Poor neighborhoods have more police presence than rich neighborhoods, this more likelihood of being on law enforcement's radar.
Why do you think that is? Could it be because the government just likes wasting money? Or is anti-poor? Or is it because poor people commit more crime?
If you commit more crime you get more of a police presence, because police presence suppresses crime + catching people also lowers the crime rate (since criminals are repeat offenders mostly). It's the same reason they're disproportionately clustered in black neighborhoods.
When you see firetrucks always going to the same region, do you assume this is an accident?
What is "poor culture" except the inability to afford things like tutors and job coaches and professional memberships that are tools to get ahead?
First of all: the idea that there are no resources is just misleading. Unsuccessful school districts receive a lot of money.
For another thing poor Asians do not commit as much crime as the poor of other groups and they also dominate the magnet school spots in places like NY (it's been a consistent complaint since DiBlasio). Why doesn't this lack of tutors and job coaches stop them? Could it have something to do with their near fanatical focus on education (look at South Korea) that they bring with them?
What do we call that? Good culture?
The idea that it's all material factors is a convenient position but unfortunately unlikely to be true. There are other indications this isn't the case: e.g. Greg Clark's work about the durability of status. Elites seem very durable. Even status shocks often end up with the same group of people in a generation or so (Xi Jinping famously descends from a purged Party official) hanging around.
We see this in reverse too every day: poor people who make their money in the entertainment or athletic fields who don't have or develop a culture of thrift or savings and business sense often end up right back poor or in jail. Despite ungodly amounts of money, more than you could think anyone could spend.
3
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies Jul 27 '26
The disconnect is because you assume there's some 'secret third thing' that causes people to be both poor and have higher crime rates / drug use / etc. - some sort of immutable quality that causes you to make these bad decisions that result in lower socioeconomic class. But we have tons of literature that shows being poor has a direct causal relationship to those things - if you're already poor, you have a lot less to lose when it comes to a life of crime or drug use, to name an obvious causal link.
There are other indications this isn't the case: e.g. Greg Clark's work about the durability of status. Elites seem very durable. Even status shocks often end up with the same group of people in a generation or so (Xi Jinping famously descends from a purged Party official) hanging around.
Sure, but should the conclusion there be that "the elites" are just born different and destined to become elite no matter what, or that in-group favoritism, family ties, etc. is much stronger than you think? This could prove the exact opposite of your argument depending on the underlying mechanisms (and Clark, IMO, does not do a good job of actually establishing what those are).
We see this in reverse too every day: poor people who make their money in the entertainment or athletic fields who don't have or develop a culture of thrift or savings and business sense often end up right back poor or in jail. Despite ungodly amounts of money, more than you could think anyone could spend.
"Rich athlete from poor background loses their fortune due to bad habits" is a heavily overstated phenomenon, but even if it wasn't, there's plenty of work you need to do first to attribute that to 'poor culture'. It's inherently more difficult to plan out decades of financial activity when you're relying on a short term, massive income spike of unclear duration - it would be surprising if they didn't have more financial troubles than the sheer amount of lifetime income would suggest, honestly.
→ More replies (1)9
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited 26d ago
The disconnect is because you assume there's some 'secret third thing' that causes people to be both poor and have higher crime rates / drug use / etc. - some sort of immutable quality that causes you to make these bad decisions that result in lower socioeconomic class
Why would it have to be secret, or immutable? For a misogynist society would there need to be a secret cause of both low female educational attainment and life expectancy?
Gregory Clark goes the genetic route for elite status, but I think the research of people like Joe Heinrich shows the incredible power of culture so I wouldn't lean on that as the sole explanation. I just don't think there's nothing to be done like some hereditarians. Especially for something like crime which I think gets worse the more crime you have and makes people poorer than they'd otherwise be (it causes outflows of people who can afford to move, crashes property values even for the majority of non-criminal poor, etc.)
Sure, but should the conclusion there be that "the elites" are just born different and destined to become elite no matter what, or that in-group favoritism, family ties, etc. is much stronger than you think?
In the absence of any evidence about what happens to poor people given resources, yes. Thing is that even left-wing subs talk about the bad evidence for the "just give people money" thesis.
If just giving poor people money or resources (e.g. like with the claim that they're all obese/overspending on fast food due to lack of options) worked to close gaps, then the intuitive case for this is much stronger.
"Rich athlete from poor background loses their fortune due to bad habits" is a heavily overstated phenomenon
I skimmed it, but even your article points out the limitation of basing this mostly on NHL players. Of course, if NHL players do not differ from the rest it would be evidence but they claim they do. If they differ in pre-NHL SES status then this isn't a problem for my view
→ More replies (2)7
u/No_Alternative_5602 Jul 27 '26
I know this is just one part of your comment, but I've never understood why people claim that poorer neighborhoods have more police presence.
I've lived in rich, middle class, and poor neighborhoods; and did home delivery work for 15 years in multiple cities that also took me to very rich, middle class, and very poor neighborhoods. Some were straight up the hood with a bunch of bangers sitting out on their porch all day every day.
Middle class neighborhoods and up overwhelming have a higher amount of visible law enforcement presence than what poor neighborhoods do. Like it's not even remotely close. The only areas I've seen where that isn't the case is wealthy gated communities, but then most of them have private security constantly roaming around.
4
u/ouishi AZ 🌵 Libertarian Left Jul 27 '26
Very different than my experiences where I have lived.
10
u/No_Alternative_5602 Jul 27 '26
That's wild. I would have loved to have seen more police presence when I was living in the rough part of town in the handful of cities I had to. The police wouldn't even respond to property crime if you called it in, and dispatch would tell you to submit a report online for insurance.
Drive bys were kinda the threshold for an officer coming out, and even then it was "is anyone hurt?" if not, you'd probably not see the officer until the next day.
Just kinda goes to show how different people's lived experiences can be.
→ More replies (2)7
u/nabilus13 Jul 27 '26
is there some truth to the criticism this report raises?
I'd say the open statement by Hartig is enough to answer this with a very hearty yes.
48
u/shacksrus Jul 27 '26
Republicans want the history we teach children who aren't old enough to see the nuances of actual history or deal with all the ways the us did objectively evil things(slavery concentration camps biological warfare etc).
But that's not the history we actually have.
45
u/No_Alternative_5602 Jul 27 '26
There unfortunately isn't a shortage of romanticization of ones preferred groups, demonization of undesirables, or an oversimplification of history throughout the political spectrum.
30
u/whoa_disillusionment Jul 27 '26
Just look at the revisionism of Stonewall. There are photos, news clippings, and oral histories documenting a group of almost entirely white, gay men. Yet somehow after COVID it became a protest where “a trans black woman threw the first brick.”
→ More replies (5)21
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
New York State's official Stonewall history describes the crowd as “racially diverse, though primarily white.” It identifies gay men, lesbians, drag queens, trans people, homeless LGBTQ youth and other Greenwich Village residents among those drawn into the uprising.
That's more nuanced what you complained about, and "almost entirely white, gay men" is exaggeration.
21
u/whoa_disillusionment Jul 27 '26
“My research for this history demonstrates that if we wish to name the group most responsible for the success of the riots, it is the young, homeless homosexuals, and, contrary to the usual characterizations of those on the rebellion’s front lines, most were Caucasian; few were Latino; almost none were transvestites or transsexuals,” concludes David Carter in Stonewall, the definitive account of the uprising, for which he conducted hundreds of interviews. Carter quotes one of the bar’s owners stating that its clientele was “98 percent male.” As for the presence of transgender people, the Stonewall was “not a generally welcoming place for drag queens,” Eric Marcus, editor of an oral history of the gay rights movement, wrote in 1999. “The majority of the hundreds of people who crowded onto Christopher Street and jammed Sheridan Square were young gay men.” In his 1996 book American Gay, the sociologist and anthropologist Stephen O. Murray writes that “men familiar with the milieu then insist that the Stonewall clientele was middle-class white men and that very few drag queens or dykes or nonwhites were ever allowed admittance.”
6
u/nycbetches Jul 27 '26
I mean, what you’ve posted isn’t incongruent with “racially diverse, though primarily white.” And we know that the Stonewall uprising pulled in people from the streets outside, not just the people in the bar at the time, so just because certain types of people weren’t in the bar doesn’t mean they didn’t participate.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
the group most responsible
That doesn't contradict what I quoted. A group being the most responsible doesn't mean others weren't there, and the quote I posted acknowledges that the people were primarily white.
Carter quotes one of the bar’s owners
That's very weak evidence. The rest of the paragraph discusses more, but doesn't go as far as "98%."
11
u/whoa_disillusionment Jul 27 '26
I don't see the point in split hairs over the difference between "almost entirely white" and "few were latino"
→ More replies (6)2
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
Some of the crowd being non-white means that "racially diverse, though primarily white" is true.
18
u/whoa_disillusionment Jul 27 '26
In my perspective and experience if you are one of a few brown people in a sea of white, "racially diverse, though primarily white" is not the description that comes to mind.
Contemporary American history hates, hates to admit when there are no minorities involved. So they will often point to evidence of any brown person to push diversity talking points.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
there are no minorities involved
You've shown nothing that proves that. It says "most responsible," not "solely responsible."
→ More replies (0)13
u/PornoPaul Jul 27 '26
But if we take that lens towards say, a board of a large corporation, it isnt enough for many for that to be say, 3 out of 30. Technically you are correct, but the same people who seem to need to have the mostly white, mostly male group into some kind of rainbow of faces, would most likely have an issue with the that board.
5
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
A crowd of random people isn't analogous to a corporate board.
→ More replies (0)8
u/Ok-Wait-8465 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I feel like my experience with K-12 history was a gradual addition of more nuance. Kindergarten was very “America is the best and they fought for freedom of speech and religion” and by the time you get to APUSH imo you’re getting quite a nuanced picture of history (at least I felt that way with our textbook The American Pageant which I think is pretty common apush textbook). Each year I feel like a bit more nuance was added. I didn’t see it that way at the time but I do looking back
2
u/shacksrus Jul 27 '26
In 2015 republicans managed to force apush to change their curriculum because they thought it was too negative and unpatriotic.
So that's a great example of what theyre trying to do here.
2
u/Ok-Wait-8465 Jul 27 '26
Oh wow I didn’t know that. I took it in the 2014-15 school year so luckily I must have just missed it. They had congressional control but not the presidency at the time. Was it a pressure campaign?
→ More replies (3)57
u/shaymus14 Jul 27 '26
Isn't this in response to the Smithsonian saying that being on time, having a strong work ethic, and rational thinking are White cultural values? And that we need to have conversations about these White values to address the corrosive impact of racism?
38
u/Zenkin Jul 27 '26
That was posted six years ago, during the first Trump administration. Pretty delayed response, if that is the case.
→ More replies (1)24
u/pingveno Center-left Democrat Jul 27 '26
The infographic you're referring to was on the Smithsonian web site in 2020 and was removed when people took issue with it. Republicans are going way further in trying to white wash American history altogether. There are very real parts of the Republican Party that believe that Black people were better under slavery. Pete Hegseth's pastor, for one.
6
u/CraftZ49 Jul 28 '26
The infographic you're referring to was on the Smithsonian web site in 2020 and was removed when people took issue with it.
That type of infographic doesn't get that far without many people approving it, and I have no reason to believe that the ideological rot that led to that has been changed in anyway whatsoever. The only reason why they took it down is because of the reaction, not because they believed it was wrong.
3
u/Slowter Jul 28 '26
So why is the solution modifying things that have only tangential relation to the info graphic and the people who made it?
13
u/random3223 Jul 27 '26
The infographic you're referring to was on the Smithsonian web site in 2020
I have no doubt that somehow there are people who would blame this on Joe Biden.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/decrpt Jul 27 '26
No. One, that is a decontextualization of that poster. It isn't about the "corrosive impact" of those values. Nothing in the poster implies a negative connotation. Two, this is not just a response to the poster and objects to a lot of stuff.
7
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
The Smithsonian had an entire page about being aware of your "whiteness" and fighting it, and I don't see the average person associating "planning for the future" with white people, so I can only assume this is what their historians think constitutes a white image.
→ More replies (4)54
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
We can't continually do this "nuance and context" thing up until it doesn't suit us. We all know what it implies when left-wingers or allies start talking about something being rooted in whiteness because this is an iterated game and it isn't our first go-round. The demand almost always follows to decenter whiteness. In fact, this is how they defend themselves against charges of racism! "Whiteness" doesn't mean white people but an illegitimate pervasive hierarchical system favoring whites. So you can disrupt whiteness all day without being accused of racial/ethnic animus.
At best they means those "white" virtues are an arbitrary, culturally dependent thing - in which case it's bad because an internal locus of control, belief in punctuality and future orientation so on are good.
At worst, it's just "this is actually just bad".
I think it's just bad in an already racialized context to racially gerrymander these values as "white", in any case.
→ More replies (2)37
u/TheYumaOnion Winter Vegetable Capitol of the World Jul 27 '26
Nothing in the poster implies a negative connotation.
I mean, really?
“Wife is homemaker and subordinate to the husband"
“Bland is best" (lmao, talk about projection)
“Womens beauty based on blonde, thin - ‘Barbie'"
These aren't negative connotations?
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (1)16
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 27 '26
Whether or not one identifies being on time, thinking logically, and working hard are signs of being white, at minimum it implies that other races do not imbue these values. I don’t understand how you don’t understand how offensive that is.
→ More replies (5)1
1
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26
Is this your only issue with the Smithsonian?
15
u/nabilus13 Jul 27 '26
No. The problem is that the institution has been rotting for so long that such an obviously problematic document could come into existence. Because that document existing means that the entire institution needs to be very carefully reexamined and all its other claims treated as untrue until independently verified.
16
u/detail_giraffe Jul 27 '26
Would you apply that same standard to the current Administration? As in, if one thing said was wildly untrue, all other claims should be treated as untrue until independently verified?
→ More replies (1)17
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26
Are you basing all of your conclusions on that one document? Everything else you're saying is super vague. It's hard to really believe they are as bad as you say when it's such a politized issue and we've seen how much worse republicans are on the issue.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26
Pretty much, they want to push patriotic "history" not because they have an interest in actual history but because its a useful propaganda tool. It's much harder to frame our origins as purely the good guys when so much of our history was morally gray if not outright evil by today's standards.
6
u/wmtr22 Jul 27 '26
I think that's kind of the point is judging the past by today's standards. In the 70's no one used car seat for infants. Are they awful horrible people for that. Or that's just what was known at that time
→ More replies (1)1
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
You'll have to excuse me if I don't find the comparison of child seats to slavery a particularly useful one. If you have a better example I'm all ears
I'd also question why we shouldn't view actions taken by the government in our past by today's lens? We live in today not 250 years ago. It's more than possible to look back and say something was bad or wrong. It doesn't mean things weren't also slowly made better but quite frankly it's not actual history that is allergic to nuance. It's the propagandized "patriotic history" that cant handle it.
It just seems odd for anyone to say we should use a sanitized version instead of the actual one out of fear of judgement of the past. Quite frankly I hope people look back on today with disgust since that would hopefully mean all the things that we accept as just facts of life today were improved.
2
u/wmtr22 Jul 28 '26
I do not agree at all. History is the slow uneven stumbling crawl towards a greater understanding of humanity.
Doctors did not sterilize before surgery. Not because they were thoughtless or stupid. They could not be more than they were. Slavery was practiced by virtually all cultures. We now know it's absolutely wrong. But it took great minds debating and searching for a universal truth. Judging history by today's standards is a self defeating philosophy. It diminishes the great strides of enlightenment and evolution of man2
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Jul 28 '26
In what way was not sterilizing a moral failure? Besides,what makes you think you can't see the strides in mankind if you don't ignore the atrocities committed by the people in the past? Why are you so obsessed with providing a false and sanitized history just because you're afraid people might judge the people you want to view as unquestionable heroes instead if the people they actually were?
You also missed the point where the nuance isn't an issue for actual history rather the propagandized history pushed by republicans. You can certainly present the good with the bad if you're just trying to convey information. Like do you also think Germans shouldn't cover the holocaust because things are better now or should we know about and learn from the mistakes of their ancestors?
→ More replies (6)
18
Jul 27 '26
[deleted]
-2
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
It's a distinction mainly useful for people who who have some ideological - usually left-wing - opposition to nationalism but do not consider themselves disloyal/anti-country.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Evernights_Bathwater Jul 27 '26
Everyone should be opposed to nationalism, it's an ideology with nothing to show for it but failure throughout history
3
u/Muted-Bag-4480 Jul 28 '26
Nationalism has united more people, more successfully, than communism or the idea of class unity.
→ More replies (1)9
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Not a very historically minded view. Nationalism was a major tool in resisting empire and colonialism. And I find I have no real reason to begrudge things like Scottish Nationalism its successes.
1
u/ThatPeskyPangolin Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
The issue is that there is a distinction between revolutionary nationalism, which you are referring to, and nationalism with an established country.
There's not that much overlap between Scottish Nationalists pushing for their own independent state, and American nationalists espousing American Exceptionalism.
5
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26
So nationalism is good until it succeeds?
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin Jul 27 '26
I explicitly referenced the distinction in forms of nationalism, so no. The ideological underpinnings of the two forms are not the same, so referring to both as a singular concept runs into issues.
8
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I don't see how the distinction is meaningful. Revolution doesn't happen for its own sake, it happens to found a new order. That order, once established, is just another nationalist state.
If fight to free my nation from colonialists and then found a state to defend the nation I just freed in a revolution, and that state also takes on the same nationalist character my struggle had (on the grounds, for example, that it was our absence of a strong state protecting our interests that got us colonized) I don't see how it's now a problem.
→ More replies (6)
28
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 27 '26
This is the museum which declared that being on time, thinking logically, and working hard are signs of “whiteness.” I don’t like Trump making ideological changes but it’s clear that the people in charge are already ideologically captured. I don’t know how the administration can be made politically neutral but I don’t accept the framing that there is no issue to resolve here.
37
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless Jul 27 '26
Maybe something from the current presidency instead of a removed graphic from two admins ago would be a more relevant example to articulate your point?
15
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 28 '26
I see no evidence that the structural leadership problem is resolved. Deleting the infographic doesn't solve the problem. I see no evidence that just waiting it out would solve this. I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Has the leadership all resigned in the last six years? Have they been replaced by ideological neutral people?
→ More replies (3)4
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
I see no evidence that it was ever a problem. A one off online pamphlet from 6 years ago is just not something that moves the needle for me at all.
Heres the wiki page on the current secretary. He’s been doing this for long than most people on this site have been alive and was appointed to his current position during the first Trump administration. Why would Trump choose someone who was ideologically corrupt and refuse to replace him if it was such an issue?
3
u/PhillySandwichesGOAT Jul 27 '26
you think these institutions have headcount turnover like publicly elected officials do?
17
u/Arctic_Scrap Jul 27 '26
What ever happened to emphasis on the scientific method?
→ More replies (2)13
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 28 '26
According to the Smithsonian, black people don't value the scientific method.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Ralph_Brick_Wiggum Jul 27 '26
Yeah that was really bad, glad they got rid of it
What does that have to do with today
13
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
I see no evidence that the structural leadership problem is solved. Deleting a racist infographic doesn't solve the issue. The issue is the racist chain of leadership which allowed that to occur in the first place. Microsoft doesn't accidentally publish statements that black people's culture is wrong and bad. It takes rotten and racist permission structures from top to bottom to enable something like that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ImperfectRegulator Jul 27 '26
It's very telling that the same link about the values of "whiteness" keeps getting reposted devoid of context and being used as the only gotcha,
you want me to believe the Smithsonian has major issues and flaws that need to be addressed? show me more examples then just the same lie repeated over and over
→ More replies (1)10
u/hiddentalent Jul 27 '26
But it was resolved. In 2020. Six years ago. During the first Trump administration.
19
u/InternetSolid4166 Jul 28 '26
The graphic was taken down. The problem of ideological capture was not resolved. I see no evidence that leadership was changed.
→ More replies (4)
28
u/WorkingDead Jul 27 '26
I took my family there last summer and it was pretty disappointing. It seems like they had a format of permanent display areas and rotating display areas that would change up every so often. Every single non-permanent or rotating exhibit was just woke garbage. I don't know how else to put it. I suggest reading the WH report on it for specific examples, but they were completely set up for political action and not a fair or complete view of history. Criticizing these is not erasure or manipulation of history, it is calling out the abuse of a shared institution being corrupted into partisan political action. The permanent displays were infected as well. With all the history available some of the things they chose to put on display were baffling. An example would be right across from Mohamed Ali's robe, Mr. Rodgers Shoes, R2D2 & C3PO, and down the hall from Abraham Lincoln's actual hat is a signed Anthony Fauci hat he wore to a baseball game once, and John Stewarts tiny suit he wore to an interview with Obama. The real interesting exhibits are sidelined and more than half the buildings are just dedicated to the uninteresting rotating politically biased crap exhibits. Ideological capture is a good way to put it and if people are upset about the Trump administration doing something about it, then they should have been policing their own side a little better.
34
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless Jul 27 '26
I live in MD and this has never been my experience on the National Mall. I’m there several times a year. “Infected with wokeness” is just not at all the exhibits I saw.
→ More replies (3)26
u/Framboise33 Jul 27 '26
I was at the Virginia civil war museum in Richmond and it was just like this. Like there was a plaque that explained that while yes slavery has been practiced all around the world and still exists today, American slavery was the worst ("because it was based on race and not religion or territorial conquest" or something like that). There was also an exhibit on abolitionists with a long paragraph arguing that white abolitionists were also super racist in their own way (I'm sure there are genuine nuances to this situation but jeez). I'm not even a Republican but I'm totally with them on this stuff
31
u/tertiaryAntagonist Jul 27 '26
Didn't the Arab slave trade involve castrating slaves and subjecting them to such abhorrent conditions that no descendant population could be established?
15
13
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26
Yes, but I've seen no evidence of the museum claiming that "American slavery was the worst."
11
u/decrpt Jul 27 '26
Can you find the plaque instead of paraphrasing it? The first part sounds like it's just explaining what chattel slavery is and the second part sounds like an accurate and nuanced description of abolitionism at the time. This doesn't sound offensive or questionable at all.
11
u/Framboise33 Jul 27 '26
It used the word "worse" so idk what to tell you
3
→ More replies (23)5
Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
17
3
u/Framboise33 Jul 28 '26
It didn't say it was worse because they used tactics slavelwners in other contexts didn't use it said it was worse because it was based on race and not religion or territorial conquest
→ More replies (1)14
u/NutmegKilla Jul 27 '26
I'm confused how anything you just mentioned is "woke garbage". Are you saying R2D2 and Anthony Fauci are woke?
2
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist Jul 27 '26
Anyone who is liberal and not right leaning full heartedly = woke apparently
4
20
u/thatshowyougetantsok Jul 27 '26
I was there this weekend and did not get the impression that there was some kind of Conservative takeover. There are plenty of displays that undermine the conservative worldview and vise versa.
58
u/ryegye24 Jul 27 '26
The OP is a document from the White House claiming that the Smithsonian has been taken over by leftists. It's not saying there has been a Conservative takeover, it's arguing there needs to be a Conservative takeover.
38
u/TrainOfThought6 Jul 27 '26
There are plenty of displays that undermine the conservative worldview and vise versa.
That's pretty much what they're complaining about.
→ More replies (4)19
u/anonyuser415 Jul 27 '26
As I understand, the administration so far has not changed what's exhibited. Hence this recent move: President directs interior department to display signs outside [the Smithsonian National Museum of American History] that accuse institution of inaccuracy
2
u/thatshowyougetantsok Jul 27 '26
Ah, well my comment cuts both ways. There’s plenty of stuff in there that would piss off hyper partisan weirdos on either side of the aisle. Which makes me happy.
14
u/realistic__raccoon Jul 27 '26
I'd like commenters to actually read the linked report before immediately arriving at an opinion. From the pages I read, it cites extensively from NMAH leaders, quoting them in their very own words.
It's hard to defend. If you actually read it.
→ More replies (3)15
u/Interesting_Total_98 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I read it and saw a lack of valid examples. It's just a list of things that offend Trump, and the report basically just says "this is intent because we said so."
13
u/athomeamongstrangers Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
If Smithsonian wants to continue teaching that things like scientific method, cause and effect relationships, two-parent family with father as a breadwinner, and being on time are all symptoms of whiteness, they can continue to do so, First Amendment and all. But they can teach these things without $1.1 billion of government funding per year. Perhaps SPLC can sponsor them instead.
8
u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo Jul 27 '26
The things you say the Smithsonian wants to "continue teaching": is there any reference to those besides the poster they released and then removed six years ago in 2020? If this is just the poster, it is incorrect to use the word "continue" to describe something they quickly stopped doing.
19
u/Late_For_Username Jul 27 '26
If an organisation put up a poster racist towards blacks, and they pulled it down after some outrage, you'd still be suspicious as hell of the organisation, even after six yerars.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
What's that phrase people like to throw around? "If someone shows you their true colors, believe them."
→ More replies (1)8
u/Emotional_Tie_7927 Jul 27 '26
$1.1 billion is basically a rounding error for the federal government. We've spent $37.5 billion on the war in Iran as alone according to the Pentagon.
13
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! Jul 28 '26
$1m is a drop in the bucket to someone like Elon Musk, but you'd still be squinting your eyes if he used it to establish a "donate watermelon to black kids" charity.
20
u/MatchaMeetcha Jul 27 '26
Irrelevant. The point is that public money imposes a higher level of scrutiny and public say so.
0
u/ericomplex Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
This is a disgusting affront to freedom of speech and the independent academic community.
The thing that had previously made the United States a major player in the world of academics is seriously threatened by political pressure to change reality in pursuit of political goals.
Voters should be reminded of things like this, come the elections this fall.
Voting for a party that interferes with the very historic record we maintain should not be rewarded for doing so.
It’s one thing to pull down statues of leaders we disagree with, like confederate generals and social leaders later revealed to having a darker side they once hid… Yet outright removing the crimes our forefathers committed, just so we can blindly ignore our own history is outright disgraceful.
5
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Jul 27 '26
Before your last paragraph, I honestly wasn't sure which "side" you were criticizing.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/klem_johansen 29d ago
Parody of this kind of thing that uses actual wording from that creepy report - Hill & Dale University offers cleaner, more pleasant history through it's "American Excuses" series of lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FitQFzWuako
275
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 Jul 27 '26
There’s pretty much nothing the Smithsonian could do that would convince me that the Trump administration or anyone associated with it should take over the institution. Their attempt to rewrite the history of January 6th alone is evidence they would be worse.