DEC 10, 2024 | Demi Zheng
This was a harkness reading, again. They're just too interesting
As you can probably tell, I'm procrastinating studying for finals. I'm about to be so screwed but this article is way too interesting.
The article we had to read for the Harkness reading this time was "The Haitian Revolution and the Hole in French High-School History", written by Lauren Collins published on The New Yorker. It talks a lot about how the Haitian Revolution is largely left out of the French curriculum for various reasons. While I am not here to inform you on the Haitian Revolution specifically (but please read up on it in your spare time), I want to talk about these "various reasons." I was particularly intruiged and very excited by this article because of its relations to previous Harkness readings we've done like the Howard Zinn one on Columbus and Applebaum's "The Case Against Pessimism". They all revolve around one central theme: the uncomfortable truths and what we leave out because we are too scared of what will happen if we accept and admit these histories.
I've also written a little bit about why we shy away from topics like these here, although, now, I find it completely insufficient to cover the whole issue.
According to Collins, Jean-Michel Blanquer, the Minister of Education in France, said that "If we do more and more repentance, we'll have less and less integration" (page 4). Talking about people like Blanquer, Jean-Marc Aryault, a former Prime Minister of France, said, "When we discuss the history of slavery, we get the impression that we should almost apologize for talking about it ... That's a climate that worries me" (page 3). Collins cites "the increasing polarization in French society around questions of race and identity" as the reason. Essentially: Should my identity be as a French citizen or as a non-white immigrant? Collins furthers that "French universalism has traditionally precluded discussions of race, both as a specious scientific category and on the ground that "citizen" is one's primary identity." This is exactly what Howard Zinn warns against in Chapter 1: Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress of his book A People's History of the United States: "we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interests between ... conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex ... it is the job of thinking people ... not to be on the side of the executioners."
The fierce patriotism of many of these "citizens" to protect the history of the state, which strives to be perfect and clean, and their goal to present their country as one united front under one national identity overshadows the untold histories of the marginalized and the broken. Zinn speaks against this mentality in Chapter 1 of his book, but we must ask another question: why do these people feel the need to PROTECT the state in the first place? What perceived threat do these histories hold against the state/nation?
Many believe in a "tabula rasa" ("blank slate"), the innate goodness of human nature. Many of us, even those maturing and those matured, still hold onto such a romantisized view of humanity and history and still truly believe in the pureness and goodness of human nature. Learning about their ancestors committing such horrible acts like slavery and genocide, to name a few, destroys the foundation of these beliefs. Psychology Today's official definition for the concept of Cognitive Dissonance is a "term for the state of discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other. The clashing cognitions may include ideas, beliefs, or the knowledge that one has behaved in a certain way." The inconsistency between believing in human goodness and seeing such atrocities leads to this extreme uncomfort. Humans are creatures of extreme risk-aversion. Such a history that poses a threat to my system of beliefs ought not to be talked about or thought about completely. So we bend the truth, like when 2005 "French legislature passed a law requiring schools to emphasize the "positive role" of colonialism" (Collins page 2).
Or, in the case of many, like Blanquer, we, although not explicitly saying such things, express a notion of, "Ok, my ancestors did this, we've changed, sorry. But now let's move on, we're one united people now so let's just forget about it and please please please move on. Let's move on. Are we moving on yet?"
However, as Collins quotes Marc Liefna, a teacher of history and geography, "I think that to put a veil on this colonial history is to nourish resentments and to encourage people to withdraw into identity." Because the fact of the matter is that we all are not one united peoples by burying and silencing the past in favor of a rose-tinted picture but only by acknowledging and accepting these truths as just that---the truth.
Why is this such an important issue? Why does this matter to you? Why should I care? What happens as a result?
Well, nothing. It's not an important issue if you don't think about it, it doesn't matter to you, you don't care, and so nothing happens as a result. Until everything happens as a result. Because we forget, and then we repeat. And we forget, and then we repeat.
As Zinn argues, we continuously say that the tragedies in Hiroshima and Vietnam were “to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all.” We can always find justifications for what we did, we can always glorify our actions. We do nothing and then we do everything.
Anne Applebaum warns against just this in her speech "The Case Against Pessimism." While she quotes Orwell in the context of World War II, his words can be applied to virtually everything: "'Pacifism,' [Orwell] wrote, 'is objectively pro-Facist.'" Not learning about the Holes in our Histories is objectively our condoning of these atrocities.
While we condemn Nazi eugenics, modern "transhumanists," as they call themselves, continue to push for genetic modification in the name of progress. While we condemn the forcible removing of millions of indigenous peoples from their lands, our oil fracking policies are displacing them yet again. And, while we condemn colonial empires for exploiting resources abroad, modern corporations continue to strip ecosystems bare in the pursuit of profit.
So, can we really say "we've changed, sorry, let's move on," if we really have never?
The world is not rosy and perfect. Not everyone is inherently good. That is pretty mindblowing. And while I am not preaching to be wary and cynical of everyone and everything, I am trying to say that these people who commit these crimes exist. They exist, yet we exist to prevent them from carrying out their plans. And the first step always lies in education.
While, obviously, you should educate yourself by doing some reading and whatnot, a lot of the times, real action comes from the governments. The governments need to acknowledge that
Like organizations in France fighting for the incorporation of the history of the Haitian Revolution to be incorporated in everyone's studies and organizations in America who had success changing "Columbus Day" into "Indigenous People's Day," we have to understand that we all can do something about it. These organizations exist. If they don't, you exist to establish them. Demand change from the government. It's not even big change---but it's monumental change. Education is the first step.
Simply talking about it seems just that---simple. Which is why we like to denounce it as a solution saying it's too easy and we demand a five-fold path to enlightenment that would solve all our problems. But that's exactly why it's such a powerful solution---it's simple, easy, and effective. Just talk about it, through education, in conversation.
The state, the nation, and the avid defenders of the "one nationality" mindset should all realize that in order to truly be one united peoples, we need to accept these histories. We need to accept, and then remember, and only then can we truly apologize, and never, ever repeat. Otherwise, by burying and silencing, we are just putting a bandaid on the skin where an artery ruptured, digging a hole to bury a bomb bound to explode, instead of trying to figure out how to defuse the bomb in of itself.
In our textbook, McKay's A History of Western Society Since 1300 for AP®, the last paragraph of Section 19.5 on the Haitian Revolution writes "Yet Haitian independence had fundamental repercussions for world history, helping spread the idea that liberty, equality, and fraternity must apply to all people. The next phase of Atlantic revolution soon opened in the Spanish American colonies." Uncanningly similar, in Lauren Collins' article, she writes, "Louverture and the Haitian revolutionaries were maybe the ultimate Lumieres, taking the ideals of liberte, egalite, and fraternite further than their European contemporaries were willing or able to ...." I wonder which one came from which or if they both came from some other souce? It's too similar to be a simple coincidence...
Edit - 12/11/24: Apprently 'liberte, egalite, and fraternite' was the motto of the French Revolution in 1789. That's pretty cool. Mr. Stevens said people would shout it in the streets and stuff.
Anyways I am really really excited to do this discussion in class because this article literally related to a bunch of other ideas and articles we've read for previous discussions. Also, yes, I do realize that the solution is much more complicated than simply talking about it because of social pressures and the media and whatnot problems we have in the 21st century but the root of it is just simply talking about it. I don't know, I'm probably not as mature or experienced as you, and these are, as always, just my opinions. Take it or leave it, it doesn't matter, I just hope that at least what I wrote gets someone thinking. That would be cool!