Discussion of Matthew Rognlie: "Deciphering the Fall and Rise in the Net Capital Share": The Honest Broker for the Week of June 14, 2015
Liveblogging World War II: June 12, 1945: Eisenhower

(Early) Monday Wall Street Journal Auto-Smackdown: Contesting the Historical Existence of White Supremacy Department

I don't think any words are necessary. I think this passage from the Wall Street Journal's attack on the College Board's AP U.S. History curriculum speaks for itself:

Daniel Henninger: Bye, Bye, American History: "From Key Concept 1.3: ‘Many Europeans developed a belief in white superiority...

...to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians, using several different rationales.

Pity the high-school or college student who puts up a hand to contest that anymore. They don’t. They know the Orwellian option now is to stay down.... Weak school administrators and academics empowered tireless activists who [have] forced all of American history and life through the four prisms of class, gender, ethnicity and identity. What emerged at the other end was one idea—guilt. I exist, therefore I must be guilty. Of something. The College Board promises that what it produces next month will be ‘balanced.’ We await the event.

Which part of that Key Concept do Daniel Henninger and the Wall Street Journal editorial board believe should be contested, and wish to contest? The subjugation of Africans? The continued subjugation of African-Americans? The subjugation of American Indians? The belief in white supremacy? The link between subjugation on the one hand and belief in white supremacy on the other? The claim that there were different rationales for white supremacy in different times and places?

Inquiring minds really want to know. The Wall Street Journal--and Daniel Henninger--owe us a long-form follow-up.

Comments