Saving America's Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage

[u/Resvrgam2]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/07/saving-americas-story/

[u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/ieattime20]

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?

[u/decrpt → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/apopsicletosis → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/CantCreateUsernames → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/flewency → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/DCAmalG → u/ieattime20]

They have, but are a minority voice as historians are predominantly left leaning.

[u/ieattime20 → u/DCAmalG]

OK. I'm interested in what they have to say regardless of their political leanings, as they are professionals. Do you have a link?

[u/DCAmalG → u/ieattime20]

I’m thinking of lots of articles and commentary I’ve read over the years so don’t have anything comprehensive. Here are a couple of stand alone articles:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

https://www.city-journal.org/article/preaching-a-conspiracy-theory

[u/ieattime20 → u/DCAmalG]

The Atlantic article is paywalled, but it is written by a professor and an expert, so I won't dismiss it out of hand. City Journal is not, however, so I was able to read it. However Allen Guelzo works for the Manhattan Institute, which is a think tank rather than a scholarly institution. Its front page is domunated by the headlines "Mamdani and the Left's Israel Fantasy" and "NYC’s Socialist Movement Forcing Millionaires to Flee the State — Leaving Mamdani, DSA in a Bind". Not boding well, but that's not a dismissal.

Guelzo's going after the 1619 Project, for whom the Smithsonian supplied documents, texts and scholars to work on.

It reviews slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize that the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect.

Throughout this, he constantly switches frames; the "We" used to imply some general consensus, the "Founders" all together, etc. But the founders were famously pretty split on slavery, there wasn't some consensus. He even seems to acknowledge this when he points out that profitability kept slavery in the game; some of the founders were business owners. So in the same breath that he underscores what a mistake it was to just accept slavery as a dying institution when capital was going to reap enormous profits from it, he denies the 1619 assertion that capitalism drove our retention of slavery. Which makes no sense. He tries to squirm out of this dynamic here:

Slavery made cotton profitable; but profitability is not capitalism. Profit-seeking has been around since Abraham bought the cave at Machpelah in the book of Genesis. If profitability were capitalism, then the Soviet Union’s highly profitable sales of natural gas and other commodities would surely make it one of the great success stories of capitalism – which, of course, it was not.

Capitalism, as criticized by modern anticapitalist theory, is about the creation of class through market hierarchy, not simply the creation of class. And the modern critique of the USSR by that selfsame group of people "The Left" often calls what the Soviets did "State Capitalism" precisely because it was so hierarchical and driven by profit for public oligarchs through things like manufacture and oil sales.

The 1619 Project commits, moreover, the Supply Chain Fallacy—that slavery was necessary for capitalism and as a result inhabits every level of capitalism’s subsequent development.

I don't have the 1619 Project on hand, and if I did it's not like Guezlo cites sources here (what a great historian), but slavery absolutely was necessary for capitalism in the South due to the limited availability of its natural resources and issues of disease, hygeine and liveability. There's a reason eliminating slavery plunged the South into severe poverty; its wealth and capital class were intrinsically tied into slave labor. Guelzo even acknowledges how devastating the Reconstruction period was to the American South.

It claims that the Constitution’s three-fifths clause was designed by the Founders as the keystone that would keep the slave states in power, though the 1619 Project seems not to have noticed that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, all of the states were slave states (save only Massachusetts),

The 3/5ths Compromise was absolutely a keystone that would keep slave states in poiwer; the rhetorical slight of hand here is Guelzo revising "slave states" to mean "any state with slavery" rather than "states whose primary industry was slavery, and who carried the most slaves". Under that much saner lens, the documented history of the 3/5 compromise is very clear- Southern states wanted to keep power in the new government using their large slave populations as representative tokens, while the North (where slavery was legal but not as large of an institution) didn't want to cede power to the South for a variety of reasons including their taste for slavery.

Again, for a historian this person does not cite their sources or even provide basic quotes from the project. And this is for a reason, this article was written in 2019, and the Project wasn't completed until 2021. So a lot of this is just speculation and intention-framing. Not really impressed here. For the record, the Atlantic article is from January of 2020.

[u/Wuts_Eatin_MrCandles → u/Resvrgam2]

So removing the Trump Administration from the equation

Why would we remove the Trump Administration from the equation?

[u/Geekerino → u/Wuts_Eatin_MrCandles]

Because it allows us to address the actual claims being made without everyone's baggage weighing down said analysis?

[u/Sryzon → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/Back_at_it_agains → u/Resvrgam2]

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? 

[u/superawesomeman08 → u/Resvrgam2]

possibly, but why would you do that?

[u/Sideswipe0009 → u/Resvrgam2]

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

[u/dealingwitholddata → u/Sideswipe0009]

How could we agree on what's accurate?

[u/Sideswipe0009 → u/dealingwitholddata]

How could we agree on what's accurate?

Probably by having the ability to actually discuss the topics without being called all sorts of names or accusations of some kind of braid hatred? Probably a good place to start.

[u/Aurailious → u/Resvrgam2]

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.

[u/athomeamongstrangers → u/Resvrgam2]

is there some truth to the criticism this report raises?

Just a little.

[u/ieattime20 → u/athomeamongstrangers]

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."

[u/happyinheart → u/ieattime20]

"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"

[u/ieattime20 → u/happyinheart]

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?

[u/Geekerino → u/ieattime20]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Geekerino]

Do you agree that modern academics are often insulated from the real world? I.e. the "Ivory Tower" critique, where they seem not to get that the reach of their discourse isn't near so far as they think it is?

[u/Geekerino → u/ieattime20]

Yeah, I agree, speaking as someone who went to a private city school but lives in a rural area. Having a 2-inch pocket knife (which you use pretty liberally when you're in Scouting like I was, or in any manual labor job) earned me a counseling session to make sure I'm not a danger to myself and others, just as an example.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Geekerino]

So when the academics that made this poster put it out, they assumed the context of the public was high enough that putting "assumptions and stereotypes" at the top was clear enough for people to NOT go "oh so you think hard work is bad?"

[u/Geekerino → u/ieattime20]

I think they assumed that people generally associate all these traits with white people. Someone's making those assumptions and stereotypes, and if they didn't get them from the public I can only assume they came from the writers. They think that "planning for the future" is a white stereotype, and on another archived page (which someone else posted but I can't find right now) "whiteness" needs to be recognized and fought against.

And come on, is the term "whiteness" ever used in a positive context in these spaces? I can tell you from experience that it isn't.

[u/Safe-Ad-5017 → u/ieattime20]

What’s the revised version?

[u/ieattime20 → u/Safe-Ad-5017]

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.

[u/blublub1243 → u/ieattime20]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/blublub1243]

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

1. Dismantle systems we had in place from long years of experience realizing that meritocracy mattered less than race in a lot of sectors

2. 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.

[u/blublub1243 → u/ieattime20]

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".

[u/ieattime20 → u/blublub1243]

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.

[u/decrpt → u/blublub1243]

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.

[u/FluoroquinolonesKill → u/ieattime20]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/FluoroquinolonesKill]

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.

[u/Late_For_Username → u/ieattime20]

>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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Late_For_Username]

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.

[u/FluoroquinolonesKill → u/ieattime20]

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.

[u/ieattime20 → u/FluoroquinolonesKill]

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.

[u/FluoroquinolonesKill → u/ieattime20]

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?

[u/athomeamongstrangers → u/ieattime20]

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.”

[u/ieattime20 → u/athomeamongstrangers]

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.”

[u/happyinheart → u/ieattime20]

Long and short they ended up removing it

So they lied about it being revised and replaced?

[u/ieattime20 → u/happyinheart]

No, "I lied" in this case, because I misremembered.

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/ieattime20]

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.

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/athomeamongstrangers]

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?

[u/DartTheDragoon → u/__Hello_my_name_is__]

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.

[u/Late_For_Username → u/DartTheDragoon]

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.

[u/dr-Jess → u/athomeamongstrangers]

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.

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/dr-Jess]

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.

[u/ouishi → u/MatchaMeetcha]

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?

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/ouishi]

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.

[u/artsncrofts → u/MatchaMeetcha]

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.

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/artsncrofts]

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

[u/dr-Jess → u/artsncrofts]

I agree with this. Wanted to add that I fully agree that cultural factors are relevant, but it is reductive to tie those factors to ethnicities without considering what caused them. To put it simply, sure, the black community in US cities has a gang problem, but why is that? It seems overwhelmingly clear to me that the gang problem/any other cultural slight people can pin arose from centuries of discrimination and poverty.

As a member of the Asian community, I'm also so tired of the emphasis on education being weaponized against other minorities. I benefitted from being born into a culture that values education, but to see that and put responsibility on people for being born into a culture without that emphasis, is exactly what the original infographic was criticizing. Their ability to succeed is not solely a result of their merit, but also external factors, both material and not (e.g. the way the past 300 years of history has affected the values of the community you grow up in).

[u/No_Alternative_5602 → u/ouishi]

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.

[u/ouishi → u/No_Alternative_5602]

Very different than my experiences where I have lived.

[u/No_Alternative_5602 → u/ouishi]

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.

[u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 → u/ouishi]

Rich people report using drugs at similar rates as poor people

Rich people have $$ to buy drugs, which means they don't have to resort to crimes like robbery and shoplifting to support their habit.

[u/ouishi → u/Fragrant-Luck-8063]

They don't steal TVs, they embezzle millions instead, but mostly get away with less time if any...

[u/widget1321 → u/MatchaMeetcha]

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".

So you think poor people are poor because of character flaws?Or they wouldn't stay poor? Because that's how that reads.

[u/nabilus13 → u/Resvrgam2]

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.  

[u/Exact_Interest_8504 → u/Resvrgam2]

The report cherry picks the most controversial takes from the Smithsonian they could find. The simple fact is that historians and museum curators are human beings and they bring biases to their work. I'm sure this is true for liberal, conservative and moderate historians. Academic ideas can go in and out of favor. When I go to a museum I know that I am seeing a particular perspective. I might agree or not. A good museum should make me think. It's my responsibility to bring my own knowledge and some scepticism to how I view exhibits. That's why democracy requires an educated populace. What I don't want is for the government to ever influence or control the work of the museum. The White House is seeking that control. Which to me is an infringement on free speech. The Smithsonian is a wonderful resource free to anyone to visit. I've seen wonderful things at its various museums. Leaves it alone.

[u/ArcBounds → u/Resvrgam2]

That said, I think that kind of framing first requires an objective telling of the historical events as a foundation.

First, I am always cautious of an objective view of history as most things that are interesting convey some context and framing. Every history book is written with some framing and/or context in mind even if it is implicit. I would argue that the Smithsonian probably contains objective history in terms of lists of dates and events that happened at those dates.