Memory Laws
from Timothy Snyder....
Russian policies belong to a growing international body of what are called “memory laws”: government actions designed to guide public interpretation of the past. Such measures work by asserting a mandatory view of historical events, by forbidding the discussion of historical facts or interpretations or by providing vague guidelines that lead to self-censorship.
This spring, memory laws arrived in America. Republican state legislators proposed dozens of bills designed to guide and control American understanding of the past. As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida) has passed guidelines with the same effect.
The most common feature among the laws, and the one most familiar to a student of repressive memory laws elsewhere in the world, is their attention to feelings.
History is not therapy, and discomfort is part of growing up. As a teacher, I cannot exclude the possibility, for example, that my non-Jewish students will feel psychological distress in learning how little the United States did for Jewish refugees in the 1930s. I know from my experience teaching the Holocaust that it often causes psychological discomfort for students to learn that Hitler admired Jim Crow and the myth of the Wild West.
Teachers in high schools cannot exclude the possibility that the history of slavery, lynchings and voter suppression will make some non-Black students uncomfortable. The new memory laws invite teachers to self-censor, on the basis of what students might feel — or say they feel. The memory laws place censorial power in the hands of students and their parents. It is not exactly unusual for white people in America to express the view that they are being treated unfairly; now such an opinion could bring history classes to a halt.
The memory laws arise in a moment of cultural panic when national politicians are suddenly railing against “revisionist” teachings.
A hundred years after the Tulsa massacre, almost to the day, the Oklahoma Legislature passed its memory law. Oklahoman educational institutions are now forbidden to follow practices in which “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress” on any issue related to race. (This has already led to at least one community college canceling a class on race and ethnicity.)
My experience as a historian of mass killing tells me that everything worth knowing is discomfiting; my experience as a teacher tells me that the process is worth it. Trying to shield young people from guilt prevents them from seeing history for what it was and becoming the citizens that they might be. Part of becoming an adult is seeing your life in its broader settings. Only that process enables a sense of responsibility that, in its turn, activates thought about the future.
Democracy requires individual responsibility, which is impossible without critical history. It thrives in a spirit of self-awareness and self-correction.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is infantilizing: We should not have to feel any negative emotions; difficult subjects should be kept from us. Our memory laws amount to therapy, a talking cure. In the laws’ portrayal of the world, the words of white people have the magic power to dissolve the historical consequences of slavery, lynchings and voter suppression. Racism is over when white people say so.
We start by saying we are not racists. Yes, that felt nice. And now we should make sure that no one says anything that might upset us. The fight against racism becomes the search for a language that makes white people feel good. The laws themselves model the desired rhetoric. We are just trying to be fair. We behave neutrally. We are innocent.
Russian policies belong to a growing international body of what are called “memory laws”: government actions designed to guide public interpretation of the past. Such measures work by asserting a mandatory view of historical events, by forbidding the discussion of historical facts or interpretations or by providing vague guidelines that lead to self-censorship.
This spring, memory laws arrived in America. Republican state legislators proposed dozens of bills designed to guide and control American understanding of the past. As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida) has passed guidelines with the same effect.
The most common feature among the laws, and the one most familiar to a student of repressive memory laws elsewhere in the world, is their attention to feelings.
History is not therapy, and discomfort is part of growing up. As a teacher, I cannot exclude the possibility, for example, that my non-Jewish students will feel psychological distress in learning how little the United States did for Jewish refugees in the 1930s. I know from my experience teaching the Holocaust that it often causes psychological discomfort for students to learn that Hitler admired Jim Crow and the myth of the Wild West.
Teachers in high schools cannot exclude the possibility that the history of slavery, lynchings and voter suppression will make some non-Black students uncomfortable. The new memory laws invite teachers to self-censor, on the basis of what students might feel — or say they feel. The memory laws place censorial power in the hands of students and their parents. It is not exactly unusual for white people in America to express the view that they are being treated unfairly; now such an opinion could bring history classes to a halt.
The memory laws arise in a moment of cultural panic when national politicians are suddenly railing against “revisionist” teachings.
A hundred years after the Tulsa massacre, almost to the day, the Oklahoma Legislature passed its memory law. Oklahoman educational institutions are now forbidden to follow practices in which “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress” on any issue related to race. (This has already led to at least one community college canceling a class on race and ethnicity.)
My experience as a historian of mass killing tells me that everything worth knowing is discomfiting; my experience as a teacher tells me that the process is worth it. Trying to shield young people from guilt prevents them from seeing history for what it was and becoming the citizens that they might be. Part of becoming an adult is seeing your life in its broader settings. Only that process enables a sense of responsibility that, in its turn, activates thought about the future.
Democracy requires individual responsibility, which is impossible without critical history. It thrives in a spirit of self-awareness and self-correction.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is infantilizing: We should not have to feel any negative emotions; difficult subjects should be kept from us. Our memory laws amount to therapy, a talking cure. In the laws’ portrayal of the world, the words of white people have the magic power to dissolve the historical consequences of slavery, lynchings and voter suppression. Racism is over when white people say so.
We start by saying we are not racists. Yes, that felt nice. And now we should make sure that no one says anything that might upset us. The fight against racism becomes the search for a language that makes white people feel good. The laws themselves model the desired rhetoric. We are just trying to be fair. We behave neutrally. We are innocent.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Dmitri
(last edited Mar 11, 2022 08:51AM)
(new)
Mar 11, 2022 08:49AM
Thanks for this article Michael! One of Snyder's reoccuring themes is 'innocence'. I sometimes recite my own innocence in my head, basically true and comforting. I think he means to look at the larger context of 'innocence' which is more problematic, at home and abroad.
reply
|
flag
Sometimes you think you’ve seen it all with Republicans. But you haven’t. There is no bottom to their stupidity and vice.
comment from one my connections, JimThought control has enormous potential as a means to control behavior in ways that facilitate the consolidation of power. Every fascist regime has understood that, since it's necessary to regulate people's perception of truth if you want them to accept draconian measures that the regime wishes to implement. The most effective channels for thought control are the communications media and the education systems. When any system of education begins to eliminate critical thinking, it becomes a dangerous force that feeds on its own narrative.
In a past era, when most adults read newspapers and there was no Twitter, Tiktok etc. to bombard kids with idiotic sound bites it was more difficult to manipulate reality. The tools have evolved, mankind has not.
Yup. Coming from Texas we have a lot to not discuss -- a racist revolution to put whites over Mexicans and gain the freedom to hold slaves, a secession from the USA to keep slavery, and a battle against any federal requirements for equality ever since. Just shut up about it.
Michael,Thanks so much for sharing this article. I spent the bulk of my career in history education,1st as a teacher, and later a a professor training history teachers. The movement to suppress history teaching is especially painful to me. " Discomfort " is a good thing; it creates the kind of dissonance that lead to growth. I am scared that we are moving toward an Orwellian future.
My sister is a living example of how someone who knows zero history is easy to manipulate. Cybersecurity experts in the U.S. have determined that up 50% of what's on social media is fake news coming from Russia. It was a big factor in the 2016 election.At one point, she kept bringing up a blood libel about George Soros, which of course also had to involve Hillary. When I explained the origin of such an antisemitic libel her response was that it was just dusty old facts that are no longer relevant.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The book you refer to is frightening and yet necessary for the people of the western world to read.
cyberwar has been going on for yearsBack in 2001, I interviewed all sorts of cyber experts at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, etc, and put together a book proposal. My NY agent told me that no one would be interested, but it's all come true! The big difference is that China is now a big player.
