LOS ANGELES, CA - NOVEMBER 30: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones ... [+]
Too many completely misunderstand why Black history is critically important for antiracism progress. They view Black History month as a time to learn about a new Black inventor or perhaps learn some Black trivia, but they don’t make the connection between the history and our race-based challenges today or use the history to fundamentally reframe discussions around systemic racism and persistent racial disparities.
Since the 2020 racial reckoning, companies and organizations like never before have committed to not just being “nonracist” but becoming actively antiracist. This has precipitated new workplace conversations around race and anti-Black racism in particular, but unfortunately, many conversations have proven less than fruitful, some downright antagonizing and frustrating, arguably in large part because we often approach the conversation through completely different belief systems, different lenses…and that is where drilling into history can help.
Many would argue that it’s precisely because a truthful accounting of American history holds such power to fundamentally challenge and shift belief systems (for the better) that there’s been so much energy focused on suppressing it. Perhaps the most recent example is the Florida Department of Education’s rejection of an AP African American studies course, deeming it “significantly lacks educational value.” Many view recent this action along with recent book bannings and arguments around phantom critical race theory curricula in K-12 education as nothing less than an assault on historical truth.
A great example of the power that leaning into historical facts can have in effectively challenging belief systems and mental frames around racial injustice can be found in a 2021 exchange between Pulitzer prize winning journalist and creator of the groundbreaking book and Hulu docuseries The 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones and CNN’s Chris Wallace. The “Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace” interview provides a masterclass in how many of these “difficult conversations” play out, even in workplaces. Their sometimes tense dialogue also amplifies the important role that historical analysis can play, not just for the sake of learning facts, but more importantly for fundamentally framing or reframing our perspective on racial issues.
Historical framing defines the contours of our belief systems, and those critically important belief systems often dictate how we approach these conversations, our assumptions and biases, our sense of urgency, our level of racial stamina…indeed the very lens through which we filter information and distill opinions.
One particular portion of the interview is particularly instructive for highlighting these distinctly different lenses, and Hannah-Jones arguably does a masterful job using a brilliant mélange of objective historical facts to challenge a belief system seemingly tethered to a romanticized, self-soothing interpretation of American history. In this exchange, Wallace challenges her assertion around the role of Black America in helping achieve democracy.
Wallace projects two quotes from her seminal essay “The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story,”
“Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of Black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different—it might not be a democracy at all.”
“We like to call those who lived during World War Two, the greatest generation, but that allows us to ignore the fact that many of this generation fought for democracy abroad, while brutally suppressing democracy for millions of American citizens.”
Wallace then continues, “Again, I am in no way minimizing our terrible racial legacy. But in some of these things aren't you're overstating?”
Hannah-Jones methodically connects the dots to support her assertion, reminding Wallace of the long history of Blacks being denied the vote and insisting that democracy was finally realized through a decades-long Black resistance struggle.
Hannah-Jones*: But what I can tell you is the Double V for Victory campaign was Black people were fighting in an army, they were going overseas, they were dying for, to liberate other countries and then coming home and being lynched for wearing their uniform. They were coming home, and they could not vote. They were coming home, and they could see German prisoners of war going into restaurants and being served where they could not be served…You can't call yourself the greatest democracy and the greatest democratizing force in the country while violently and brutally suppressing democracy at home.”
Wallace: Well here here's where I take some objection. You're talking about if you say the country that we were fighting for democracy overseas, and we were not living it walking the walk talking the talk at home, I completely agree with you. But you specifically say the greatest generation brutally suppress it, many of this generation brutally suppressing democracy for millions of Americans. To me, and I think Tom Brokaw when he originally wrote the book, The Greatest Generation, was talking about 20 year olds, 30 year olds who came out of the farm fields of the Midwest, who came out of ethnic neighborhoods in Brooklyn and South Philly and stormed the beaches of Normandy and, you know, fought to defeat the most the worst regime, I would argue in, in world history, and to say that they, they were 20-30 year olds. The country was brutally suppressing Blacks, but the greatest generation wasn't.
Hannah-Jones: Well, they were.
Wallace: No, they weren't, you’re telling me that a farm, that a kid coming off a farm in Indiana or a kid who came from Brooklyn, is was suppressing Black people?
It’s hard to logically reconcile Wallace’s assertion that “the country was suppressing Blacks, but the greatest generation wasn’t” as if they were not part of the country. It seems that while many well intended white people may concede America’s long history of racial violence and legalized racial discrimination, when the facts begin to contradict their idealized images of real people, real ancestors, real “heroes,” the acknowledgement of a racial apartheid environment conveniently fades into the background almost as if racism perpetuated itself without human intervention.
As their conversation continues, Hannah-Jones outlines raw historical facts—Indiana had the largest population of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States—and highlights that while some may glamorize and intellectually coddle the “greatest generation,” 30 year-olds are in fact fully formed adults who can hold political office, enforce policies and serve in a racially segregated military among other things.
Hannah-Jones: We wouldn't parse this I think if we were talking again about another country and say, well, well, yes, the government was violently suppressing but everyone else, they weren't. They were glorious. You don't, you don't do that. This is an argument about what our country was allowing. These were countrymen and they were fighting by the way in a Jim Crow military. They were fighting in an army in the Navy, where Black people were segregated, where Black people didn't even have equal rights in the military they were serving in, and we all allowed this. I don't understand this, this trying to parse off who gets guilt or who does not for our collective history. We have to be more honest about piercing that mythology not to destroy our country, but to, if we can honestly face who we are, then we can actually become the country that we want to be…
Hannah-Jones stands firm as she strains Wallace’s whimsical, flattering recollection of the “greatest generation” through a stubbornly accurate historical filter.
“We have created a history that fits our world view and our view of ourselves. Wallace is no different,” insists Andrew Horning, MSW, author of Grappling: White Men's Journey from Fragile to Agile. “White men struggle to rewrite the story of America, and they defend it so fiercely because, in part, they are so interwoven in the privilege and benefits of that dominant narrative. They refuse to feel the pain of a marginalized story and instead label it as an ‘overstating’. Perhaps it is Wallace who is overstating the need to keep the sainthood intact of that generation.”
Arguably, Wallace’s response reflects the struggle that many have in making room for dual realities. “Part of what Americans need to consider is that while those acts of the greatest generation were heroic and patriotic, they also did some horrific things at home, and we have to begin to get comfortable with seeing the both/and of our American ancestors,” Horning explains. “Many were patriotic AND racist. Heroes AND perpetrators. Brave AND cowards. Liberators AND suppressors. Soldiers AND lynchers. Freedom fighters AND upholders of a racist system. Both can be true.”
Horning insists, “We have to accept our own humanity, that we have many sides to us. To defend the narrative of only great things in that generation is to deny them their humanity—of struggle, of hate, of bias, of historical context—and instead it elevates them to a revered status that is wholly inhuman.”
After Hannah-Jones’ recitation of facts, Wallace simply smiles and responds, “Good job.”
One can’t know if that exchange shifted his perspective or adjusted his lens in any way, but it’s certainly reasonable to surmise that that stark, blunt confrontation with Black history may have impacted his belief system in a way that little else probably could. (“Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace” media contacts did not provide a comment upon request for this article.)
Arguably, the Wallace-Hannah-Jones exchange provides interesting insight into how two different perspectives can engage on some of the most prominent, compelling discussions of race and racism today. Their discussion, while spirited, wasn’t overly contentious and seemed to offer space for real learning.
To move forward, we must shift our mindset about discussing the hard parts of American history. These discussions aren’t about shaming colleagues or friends. Instead, they're an opportunity to challenge naïve assumptions, soften hardened paradigms, and courageously grapple with differing world views. Clearly, as these two journalism giants talked, the growth opportunity was not to be found in the places of obvious agreement. Instead, it was lurking deep within the areas of disagreement, more specifically the crevices of discomfort. But too often our workplaces remain stagnant on issues of racial equity and justice because they’re allergic to discomfort and instead opt for polite polarization.
Little do they know that discomfort is very often an initial sign of progress, where two parties stop pretending and start getting real.
Note: Some lengthy verbatim interview passages have been shortened for brevity.
