Lies My Teacher Told Me (29 page)

Carpetbaggers and scalawags are terms coined by white Southern Democrats to defame their opponents as illegitimate.
Reconstruction-era newspapers in Mississippi, at least, used Republicans far more often than aaperbaggffi or scdlawags. Carpeibaer implies that the dregs of Northern society, carrying all their belongings in a carpetbag,
had come down to make their fortunes off the “prostrate [white] south.” Scalawag means “scoundrel.” Employing these terms would be appropriate if textbook authors made clear that they were terms of
the time and explained who used them and in what circumstances. But textbooks incorporate
them as if they were proper historical labels, with no quotation marks, in preference to
neutral terms such as Reconstruction Republicans.

Consider these sentences from The United StatesA History ofthe Republic: “In Mississippi the carpetbaggers controlled politics. In Tennessee the scalawags did.” Or
this from The American Tradition: “Despite southern white claims to the contrary, the Radical regimes were not dominated by
blacks, but by scalawags and carpetbaggers.” In reality, “scalawags” were Southern whites, of course, but this sentence writes them out of the white South, just as
die-hard Confederates were wont to do. Moreover, referring to perfectly legal governments
as “regimes” is a way of delegitimizing them, a technique Tradition applies to no other administration, not even the 1836 Republic of Texas or the 1893 Dole
pineapple takeover in Hawaii,

JOHN BROWN AMD ABRAHAM LINCOLN

To be sure, newer editions of American history textbooks no longer denounce Northerners
who participated in Southern politics and society as “dishonest adventurers whose only
thought was to feather their own nests at the expense of their fellows,” as Rise of the American Nation put it in 1961. Again, the civil rights movement has allowed us to rethink our history. Having
watched Northerners, black and white, go south to help blacks win civil rights in the 1960s, today's textbook authors display more sympathy for Northerners who worked with
Southern blacks during Reconstruction.71 Here is the paragraph on “carpetbaggers” from Rise's successor, Triumph ofthe American Nation:

The carpetbaggers came for many different reasons. Some sincerely wanted to help the freed
slaves exercise their newly acquired rights. Some hoped to get themselves elected to
political office. Some came to make their fortunes by acquiring farmland or by starling
new businesses. However, some came for reasons of pure greed or fraud, Horace Greeley
the editor of the New York Tribune, wrote that such carpetbaggers were “stealing and plundering, many of them with both arms
around the Negroes, and their hands in their rear pockets, seeing if they cannot pick a
paltry dollar out ofthem.”

And here is the paragraph on “scalawags”:

Some of these native-born southerners had the best of motives. Having opposed slavery and
secession, they had sympathized with the Union during the war. Now they believed that the
best way to restore peace and prosperity to the South and to the nation was to forgive and
forget. However, others were selfish and ambitious individuals who seized any opportunity
to advance their own fortunes at the expense of their neighbors.

The new treatment is kinder. The authors are trying to be positive about white
Republicans, even if they cannot resist ending each paragraph by invoking greed. Of
course, textbook authors might use the notion of private gain to disparage every
textbook hero from Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims through George Washington to
Jackie Robinson. They don't, though. Textbooks attribute selfish motives only to
characters with whom they have little sympathy, such as the idealists in Reconstruction,
The negatives then stick in the mind, cemented by the catchy pejoratives carpetbaggers and scalawags, while the qualifying phrases“some sincerely wanted ...”are likely to be forgotten. No textbook
introduces us to idealists such as Edmonia Highgate, facing down white violence, or Robert
Flournoy, casting his lot with black Republicans because he believed in justice. Everyone
who supported black rights in the South during Reconstruction did so at personal risk. At
the beginning of Reconstruction, simply to walk to school to teach could be
life-threatening. Toward the end of the era, there were communities in which simply to
vote Republican was life-threatening. While some Reconstructionists undoubtedly achieved
economic gain, it was a dangerous way to make a buck. Textbooks need to show the risk, and
the racial idealism that prompted most of the people who took it,

Instead, textbooks deprive us of our racial idealists, from Highgate and Flournoy, whom
they omit, through Brown, whom they make fanatic, to Lincoln, whose idealism they flatten.
In the course of events, Lincoln would come to accomplish on a national scale what Brown
tried to accomplish at Harpers Ferry: helping African Americans mobilize to fight slavery.
Finally, like John Brown, Abraham Lincoln became a martyr and a hero. Seven million
Americans, almost one-third of the entire Union population, stood to watch his funeral
train pass,73 African Americans mourned with particular intensity. Gideon Welles, secretary of the navy,
walked the streets of Washington at dawn an hour before the president breaihed his last
and described the scene: “The colored people especiallyand there were at this time more of
them perhaps, than of whiteswere overwhelmed with grief.” Welles went on to tell how all
day long “on the avenue in from ofthe White House were several hundred black people, mostly women and children,
weeping for their loss,“ a crowd that ”did not appear to diminish through the whole of
that cold, wet day” In their grief African Americans were neither misguided nor childlike.
When the hour came for dealing with slavery, as Lincoln had surmised, he had done his duty
and it had cost his life.74 Abraham Lincoln, racism and all, was blacks' legitimate hero, as earlier John Brown had
been. In a sense, Brown and Lincoln were even killed for the same deed: arming black
people for their own liberation. People around the world mourned the passing of both men,

Bui when I ask ray (white) college students on the first day of class who their heroes are
in American history, only one or two in a hundred pick Lincoln,“ Even those who choose
Lincoln know only that he was ”really great"they don't know why. Their ignorance makes
sense-after all, textbooks present Abraham Lincoln almost devoid of content. No students
choose John Brown. Not one has ever named a white abolitionist, a Reconstruction JOHN BROWN AND ABRAHAM LINCOL/S Republican, or a civil rights martyr. Yet these same students feel sympathy with America's
struggle to improve race relations. Among their more popular choices are African
Americans, from Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass to Rosa Parks and Malcolm X.

While John Brown was on trial, the abolitionist Wendell Phillips spoke of Brown's place in
history. Phillips foresaw that slavery was a cause whose time was passing, and he asked
“the American people” of the future, when slavery was long dead in “the civilization of
the twentieth century,” this question: “When that day comes, what will be thought ofthese
first martyrs, who teach us how to live and how to die?”7fi Phillips meant the question rhetorically. He never dreamed that Americans would take no
pleasure in those who had helped lead the nation to abolish slavery, or that textbooks
would label Brown's small band misguided if not fanatic and Brown himself possibly mad.

Antiracism is one of America's great gifts to the world. Its relevance extends far beyond
race relations. Antiracism led to “a new birth of freedom” after the Civil War, and not
only for African Americans. Twice, once in each century, the movement for black rights
triggered the movement for women's rights. Twice it reinvigorated our democratic spirit,
which had been atrophying. Throughout the world, from South Africa to Northern Ireland,
movements of oppressed people continue to use tactics and words borrowed from our aboliIn Vicksburg, Mississippi, these African Americans gathered at the courthouse to hear the
news of Lincoln's death confirmed, to express their grief, and perhaps to seek pro
tection in the face of an uncertain future.

tionist and civil rights movements. The clandestine early meetings of anticommunists in
East Germany were marked by singing “We Shall Overcome.” Iranians used nonviolent
methods borrowed from Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr., to overthrow their hated shah.
On Ho Chi Minh's desk in Hanoi on the day he died lay a biography ofJohn Brown. Among the
heroes whose ideas inspired the students in Tienanmen Square and whose words spilled from
their lips was Abraham Lincoln.78 Yet we in America, whose antiracist idealists are admired around the globe, seem (o have
lost these men and women as heroes. Our textbooks need to present them in such a way that
we might again value our own idealism.

JOHN BROWN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN .

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and
could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln I had. once believed that we were all masters of our fatethat we could mould our lives
into any form we pleased. . . . I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be
happy, and I supposed that anyone could corne out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the
country I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew little about. ... I
learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.

Helen Keller Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can't buy enough to eat.

Will Rogers, 1 The history of a nation is, unfortunately, too easily written as the history of its
dominant class,

Kwame Nkrumah

High school students have eyes, ears, and television sets {all too many have their own TV
sets), so they know a lot about relative privilege in America. They measure their family's
social position against that of other families, and their community's position against
other communities. Middle-class students, especially, know little about how the American
class structure works, however, and nothing at all about how it has changed over time.
These students do not leave high school merely ignorant of the workings of the class
structure; they come out as terrible sociologists. “Why are people poor?” I have asked
first-year college students. Or, if their own class position is one of relative privilege,
“Why is your family well off?” The answers I've received, to characterize them chari
tably, are half-formed and naive. The students blame the poor for not being successful.4 They have no understanding of the ways that opportunity is not equal in America and no
notion that social structure pushes people around, influencing the ideas they hold and
the lives they fashion.

High school history textbooks can take some of the credit for this state of affairs. Some
textbooks cover certain high points of labor history, such as the 1894 Pullman strike near
Chicago that President Cleveland broke with federal troops, or the 1911 Triangle
Shirtwaist fire that killed 146 women in New York City, but the most recent event
mentioned in most books Is the Taft-Hartley Act of fifty years ago. No book mentions the
Hormel meat-packers' strike in the mid-1980s or the air traffic controllers strike broken
by President Reagan. Nor do textbooks describe any continuing issues facing labor, such as
the growth of multinational corporations and their exporting ofjobs overseas. With such
omissions, textbook authors can construe labor history as something that happened long
ago, like slavery, and that, like slavery, was corrected long ago. It logically follows
that unions appear anachronistic. The idea that they might be necessary in order for workers to have a voice in the workplace goes unstated. Textbooks' treatments
of events in labor history are never anchored in any analysis of social class,5 This amounts to delivering the footnotes instead of the This photograph of a sweatshop in New York's Chinatown, taken in the early 1990s,
illustrates that the working class still works in America, under conditions not so dif
ferent from a century ago, often in the same locations.

lecture! Six of Che dozen high school American history textbooks I examined contain no
index listing at all for “social class,” “social stratification,11 ”class structure,“ ”income distribution,“ ”inequality,“ or any conceivably related
topic. Not one book lists ”upper class,“ ”working class,“ or ”lower class.“ Two of the
textbooks list ”middle class,“ but only to assure students that America is a middle
class country, ”Except for slaves, most of the colonists were members of the 'middling
ranks,'“ says Land ofPromise, and nails home the point that we are a middle-class country by asking students to
”Describe three 'middle-class' values that united free Americans of all classes.“ Several
of the textbooks note the explosion of middle-class suburbs after World War II. Talking
about the middle class is hardly equivalent to discussing social stratification, however;
in fact, as Gregory Mantsios has pointed out, ”such references appear to be acceptable
precisely because they mute class differences."

Stressing how middle-class we all are is particularly problematic today, because the
proportion of households earning between 75 percent and 125 percent of the median income
has fallen steadily since 1967. The Reagan-Bush administrations accelerated this shrinkage
of the middle class, and most families who left its ranks fell rather than rose,7 This is the kind of historical trend one would think history books would take as
appropriate subject matter, but only four of the twelve books in my sample provide any
analysis of social stratification in the United Stales. Even these fragmentary analyses
are set mostly in colonial America. Land ofPromise lives up to its reassuring title by heading its discussion of social class “Social
Mobility.” “One great difference between colonial and European society was that the
colonists had more social mobility,” echoes TheAmerican Tradition. “In contrast with contemporary Europe, eighteenthcentury America was a shining (and of
equality and opportunity-with the notorious exception of slavery,” chimes in The American Pageant. Although The Challenge of freedom identifies three social classesupper, middle, and lower among whites in colonial society,
compared to Europe “there was greater social mobility”

Never mind that the most violent class conflicts in American historyBacon's Rebellion
and Shays's Rebelliontook place in and just after colonial times. Textbooks still say that
colonial society was relatively classless and marked by upward mobility And things have
gotten rosier since. “By 1815,” The Challenge ofFreedom assures us, two classes had withered away and “America was a country of middle class
people and of middle class goals.” This book returns repeatedly, at intervals of every'
fifty years or so, to the theme of how open opportunity is in America. “In the years after
1945, social mobilitymovement from one social class to anotherbecame more widespread in America,” Challenge concludes, “This meant that people had a better chance to move upward in society” The
stress on upward mobility is striking. There is almost nothing in any of these textbooks
about class inequalities or barriers of any kind to social mobility. “What conditions made
it possible for poor white immigrants to become richer in the colonies?” Land ofPromise asks. “What conditions made/ make it difficult?” goes unasked. Textbook authors thus
present an America in which, as preachers were fond of saying in the nineteenth century, men start from “humble
origins” and aitain “the most elevated positions.”

Sodal class is probably the single most important variable in society. From womb to tomb,
it correlates with almost all other social characteristics ofpeople that we can measure.
Affluent expectant mothers are more likely to get prenatal care, receive current medical
advice, and enjoy general health, fitness, and nutrition. Many poor and working-class mothers-to-be first contact the medical profession in
the last month, sometimes the last hours, of their pregnancies. Rich babies come out
healthier and weighing more than poor babies. The infants go home to very different
situations. Poor babies are more likely to have high levels of poisonous lead in their
environments and their bodies. Rich babies get more time and verbal interaction with their
parents and higher quality day care when not with their parents. When they enter
kindergarten, and through the twelve years that follow, rich children benefit from
suburban schools that spend two to three times as much money per student as schools in
inner cities or impoverished rural areas. Poor children are taught in classes that are
often 50 percent larger than the classes of affluent children. Differences such as these
help account for the higher school-dropout rate among poor children.

Even when poor children are fortunate enough to attend the same school as rich children,
they encounter teachers who expect only children of affluent families to know the right
answers. Social science research shows that teachers are often surprised and even
distressed when poor children excel. Teachers and counselors believe they can predict who
is “college material,” Since many working-class children give off the wrong signals, even
in first grade, they end up in the “general education” track in high school “If you are
the child of lowincome parents, the chances are good that you will receive limited and
often careless attention from adults in your high school,” in the words of Theodore
Sizer's best-selling study of American high schools, Horace's Compromise. “If you are the child of upper-middie-income parents, the chances are good that you will
receive substantial and careful attention,”111 Researcher Reba Page has provided vivid accounts of how high school American history
courses use rote learning to turn off lower-class students.“ Thus schools have put into
practice Woodrow Wilson's recommendation: ”We want one class of persons to have a liberal
education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in
every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform
specific difficult manual tasks."IJ As if this unequal home and school life were not enough, rich teenagers then enroll in the Princeton Review or other coaching sessions for the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Even without coaching, affluent children are advantaged because their background is similar to that of the testmakers, so they are tH&/

comfortable with the vocabulary and subtle subcultural assumptions of the test. To no
one's surprise, social class correlates strongly with SAT scores.

All these are among the reasons why social class predicts the rate of college attendance
and the type of college chosen more effectively than does any other factor, including intellectual ability, however measured. After college, most affluent
children get white-collar jobs, most working-class children get blue-collar jobs, and the
class differences continue. As adults, rich people are more likely to have hired an
attorney and to be a member of formal organizations that increase their civic power. Poor
people are more likely to watch TV. Because affluent families can save some money while
poor families must spend what they make, wealth differences are ten times larger than
income differences. Therefore most poor and working-class families cannot accumulate the
down payment required to buy a house, which in turn shuts them out from our most important
tax shelter, the writeoff of home mortgage interest. Working-class parents cannot afford
to live in elite subdivisions or hire high-quality day care, so the process of educational
inequality replicates itself in the next generation. Finally, affluent Americans also have
longer life expectancies than lowerand working-class people, the largest single cause of
which is better access to health care.13 Echoing the results of Helen Keller's study of blindness, research has determined that
poor health is not distributed randomly about the social structure but is concentrated
in the lower class. Social Security then becomes a huge transfer system, using monies
contributed by all Americans to pay benefits disproportionately to longer-lived affluent
Americans.

Ultimately, social class determines how people think about social class. When asked if
poverty in America is the fault of the poor or the fault of the system, 57 percent of
business leaders blamed the poor; just 9 percent blamed the system. Labor leaders showed sharply reversed choices: only 15 percent
said the poor were at fault while 56 percent blamed the system. (Some replied “don't know”
or chose a middle position.) The largest single difference between our two main political
parties lies in how their members think about social class: 55 percent of Republicans
blamed the poor for their poverty, while only 13 percent blamed the system for it; 68
percent of Democrats, on the other hand, blamed the system, while only 5 percent blamed
the poor.

Few of these statements are news, I know, which is why I have not documented most of them, but the majority of high school
students do not know or understand these ideas. Moreover, the processes have changed over
time, for [he class structure in America today is not the same as it was in 1890, let
alone in colonial America. Yet in Land of Promise, for example, social class goes unmentioned after 1670.

Many teachers compound the problem by avoiding talking about social class. Recent
interviews with teachers “revealed that they had a much broader knowledge of the economy,
both academically and experientially than they admitted in class.” Teachers "expressed
fear that students might find out about the Beer is one of the few products (pickup trucks, some patent medicines, and false-teeth
cleansers are others) that advertisers try to sell with working-class images. Advertisers
use upper-mid dieclass imagery to sell most items, from wine to nylons to toilet-bowl
cleansers. Signs of social class cover these two models, from footwear to headgear. Note
who has the newspaper, briefcase, lunchOox, and, in a final statement, the cans and the
bottles.

injustices and inadequacies oftheir economic and political institutions,“15 By never blaming the system, American history courses thus present ”Republican history."
Historically, social class is intertwined with all kinds of events and processes in our
past. Our governing system was established by rich men, following theories that
emphasized government as a bulwark of the propertied class. Although rich himself, James
Madison worried about social inequality and wrote The Federalist #10 to explain how the proposed government would not succumb to the influence of the affluent.
Madison did not fully succeed, according to Edward Pessen, who examined the social-class backgrounds of all American presidents
through Reagan. Pessen found that more than 40 percent hailed from the upper class, mostly
from the upper fringes of that elite group, and another 15 percent originated in families
located between the upper and upper-middle classes. More than 25 percent came from a solid
upper-middle-class background, leaving just six presidents, or 15 percent, to come from
the middle and lowermiddle classes and just one, Andrew Johnson, representing any part
of the lower class. For good reason, Pessen titled his book The Log, Cabin Myth111 While it was sad when the great ship Titanic went down, as the old song refrain goes, it was saddest for the lower classes: among
women, only 4 of 143 first-class passengers were lost, while 15 of 93 second-class
passengers drowned, along with 81 of 179 third-class women and girls. The crew ordered
third-class passengers to remain below deck, holding some of them there at gunpoint.17 More recently,