By: Diane Benjamin
This is one story I will never forget. High school kids at BHS proved they were indoctrinated by a teacher who told them the 1619 project was real history. They were lied to with your tax dollars funding it.
The original story: https://blnnews.com/2021/06/11/2-district-87-kids-1619-project/
Did you know Abraham Lincoln was a White Supremacist who accidentally freed the slaves?
Did you know America is a racist nation?
That is what was taught to kids that have no basis in history to rebut this communist teacher.
I emailed Superintendent David Mouser back in 2021 about this teacher. I’m still waiting for a response. Are your kids still being taught garbage?
Are Bloomington schools still teaching your kids to hate America?
Anyone sane actually running for school board this time? The board had NO opposition at the last election. Neither did Unit 5.
Of course those indoctrinated students were never told the Republican Party was founded to end slavery. Details, detail.
Not to stir up trouble here, but I believe historical facts are exactly that. Lincoln had widely held beliefs, particularly in line with those of the voters of the Republican and Democratic parties of Illinois in the 1850s/60s.
From the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Charleston, Illinois, 1858. Note this was just 2 years after the famous Lincoln “Missing Speech” in Bloomington that we have enshrined on the wall with a mural next to the Government Center. I wonder what he said there, given the content of the speech he frequently gave later.
Mr. Lincoln: “While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Crowd’s Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas’s old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.].”
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm
Yeah- you need to actually look at the “1619 Project” instead of just reading what others have told you about it. It doesn’t say that about Lincoln. It points out that his primary aim when the war started was preserving the Union, not ending slavery, and that he had some racist views- one of them being that when he began advocating for an end to slavery, it was a “send them back to Africa, we don’t want them here” type of emancipation. Not an “end slavery and give them equality” type of emancipation. But it also gives him credit for the emancipation proclamation and more importantly, pushing for the 13th amendment. And gives him some credit for his views changing over the course of his presidency.
It also talks about how just focusing on Lincoln deprives the enslaved people themselves of the credit they deserve for pushing against slavery and rebelling against the system- both through large scale acts and rebellions, joining the Union army, and a myriad of other tactics. Thats hardly radical or “Unamerican.” Its important to tell those stories and give credit to everyone that helped end slavery. Its called nuance.
Now read real history. Better yet find the American Journey podcast. Tomorrow episode 16 drops. It’s about the civil war. Original documents matter, not made up history by a NY Times employee.
What that I said above isnt real history? Have you read David Herbert Donald’s authoritative biography on Lincoln? Or what about Ronald White’s more recent definitive biography? Or done research on Lincoln’s time as a lawyer in Illinois (reading LOTS of Illinois legal documents from the mid 1800s)? I have. So please, in your unlimited wisdom, let me know what in my statement wasn’t “real history” and what I got wrong.
But hey, Im sure that your “Trust me bro, I listened to a podcast” approach is as valid as the take by the work of trusted historians on the period. And, yes, there are valid historical criticisms of the 1619 Poject out there by historians. Also alot of praise for parts of it as well. But those analyses are in a very different vein than the political hackery that you’re engaging in.
I don’t read propaganda. Only original documents. Since facts don’t matter, I don’t have time for you today
Ummmm…you say the 1619 Project is bunk because it was created by a journalist from the NYT only to reference a podcast that is made by *drumroll please* Glenn Beck. If you didn’t know, he considers himself a “journalist” and is NOT a historian. Yet, I reference the works of actual historians, to which you have no response. Cool.
Also, you say you only read primary documents, yet you say you get (what you see as) historical information from a secondary source, this podcast, which is 100% interpretative.
Way to go Diane!
He doesn’t consider himself a journalist. He does have a museum full of original documents and historical artifacts though, 2nd only to the National Archives.
The New York Times doesn’t.
Oops, your propaganda disappeared. True getting history from people who aren’t trying to make people hate their country for a change.
You prove truth is immaterial, don’t bother responding. Delete button ready.