SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Capitalist cotton slavery was how United States seized control of the lucrative world market for cotton, emerging thereby as a rich and influential nation.
The malevolent racist and fascist leader Donald Trump, aka “the president of the United States,” has recently ordered a review of the national Smithsonian museums’s presentation of US history, complaining that the museums focus too much on “how bad slavery was” and on other wrongdoings in the noble American record. Trump grumbles that public exhibits on past problems like Native American genocide and Black slavery are nasty, “woke,” and “radical left” distractions from the bigger and more inspiring story of white-ruled America’s glorious rise to capitalist wealth and power. He wants mindless patriotic celebration, not factually informed criticism.
This raises two interesting and curiously related questions:
The answer to the first question depends in no small part on what strikes one as bad. If you are a racist Amerikaner pig like Trump and many of his backers, you are likely to think that US slavery wasn’t bad at all because it subjected people you hate, fear, and view as inferior and unworthy to deserved oppression, control, and exploitation. You might even think, like the demented racist Dinesh D’Souza, that slavery was good for the slaves because it provided paternalistic discipline and direction to lazy, childlike savages.
If you are a decent person with a heart for humanity regardless of skin color, however, you are right to suspect that slavery was not merely bad but horrific almost beyond words—a monumental crime at the heart and soul of an imperialist and capitalist nation that remains starkly racist partly because of its failure to deal honestly and seriously with the reality and legacy of that foundational transgression.
The answer to the second question depends on whether or not you are willing to look into some cold hard facts on slavery’s centrality to the rise of the United States as a power in the world capitalist system.
Historian Edward Baptist’s 2014 study, The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Rise of American Capitalism, eviscerated Americans’ tendency to see slavery as a quaint and archaic “premodern institution” that had nothing really to do with the United States’ rise to wealth and power. In this tendency, slavery becomes something “outside of US history,” even an antiquated “drag” on that history.
That tendency replicates a fundamental misunderstanding curiously shared by antislavery abolitionists and slavery advocates before the Civil War. While the two sides of the slavery debate differed on the system’s morality, they both saw slavery as an inherently unprofitable and static system that was out of touch with the pace of industrialization and the profit requirements of modern capitalist business enterprise.
Nothing, Baptist shows, could have been further from the truth. Unlike what many abolitionists thought, the savagery and torture perpetrated against slaves in the South was about much more than sadism and psychopathy on the part of slave traders, owners, and drivers. Slavery, Baptist demonstrates, was an incredibly cost-efficient method for extracting surplus value from human beings, far superior in that regard to “free” (wage) labor in the onerous work of planting and harvesting cotton. It was an especially brutal form of capitalism, driven by ruthless yet economically “rational” torture along with a dehumanizing ideology of racism.
It wasn’t just the South, home to the four wealthiest US states on the eve of the Civil War, where investors profited handsomely from the forced cotton labor of Black slaves. By the 1840s, Baptist shows, the “free labor North” had “built a complex industrialized economy on the backs of enslaved people and their highly profitable cotton labor.” Cotton picked by Southern slaves provided the critical cheap raw material for early Northern industrialization and the formation of a new Northern wage-earning populace with money to purchase new and basic commodities.
At the same time, the rapidly expanding slavery frontier itself provided a major market for early Northern manufactured goods: clothes, hats, cotton collection bags, axes, shoes, and much more. Numerous infant industries, technologies, and markets spun off from the textile-based industrial revolution in the North. Along the way, shipment of cotton to England (the world’s leading industrial power) produced fortunes for Northern merchants and innovative new financial instruments and methods were developed to provide capital for, and speculate on, the slavery-based cotton boom.
All told, Baptist calculates, by 1836 nearly half the nation’s economy activity derived directly and indirectly from the roughly 1 million Black slaves (just 6% of the national population) who toiled on the nation’s Southern cotton frontier. Sectional differences aside, The Half Has Never Been Told shows that “the commodification and suffering and forced labor of African Americans is what made the United States powerful and rich” decades before the Civil War.
Capitalist cotton slavery was how United States seized control of the lucrative world market for cotton, the critical raw material for the Industrial Revolution, emerging thereby as a rich and influential nation in the world capitalist system by the second third of the 19th century.
The returns were wrung through soul-numbing exploitation overlaid with savage racist torture. Chronicling the horrifying violence and terror inflicted on millions of Black Americans who suffered in bondage over the eight decades between US national independence (1783) and the US Civil War (1861-1865), Baptist documents how the Southern slave engine of American capitalist accumulation murdered Blacks in huge numbers and “stole everything” from surviving slaves through “the massive and cruel engineering required to rip a million people from their homes, brutally drive them to new, disease-ridden places, and make them live in terror and hunger as they continually built and rebuilt a commodity-generating empire…”
Over a generation, The Half Has Never Been Told shows, the infant US South grew from a thin coastal belt of burned-out tobacco plantations into a giant continental Empire of Cotton. This remarkable expansion was rooted in regular and ferocious white violence. The brutality and bloodshed included mass-murderous Indian Removal (cotton slavery required constant Westward territorial extension), forced slave migrations, the endemic fracturing of slave families, and he ubiquitous and systematic torture of Black slaves. As Baptist observes:
In the sources that document the expansion of cotton production, you can find at one point or another almost every product sold in New Orleans stores converted into an instrument of torture [used on slaves]: carpenters’ tools, chains, cotton presses, hackles, handsaws, hoe handles, irons for branding livestock, nails, pokers, smoothing irons, singletrees, steelyards, tongs. Every modern method of torture was used at one time or another: sexual humiliation, mutilation, electric shocks, solitary confinement in “stress positions,” burning, even waterboarding… descriptions of runaways posted by enslavers were festooned with descriptions of scars, burns, mutilations, brands, and wounds.
“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass asked in 1852. “A day,” Douglass answered, “that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.” Further:
To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour… Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
The slave state Confederacy (1861-65) formed, seceded from the United States, and waged a Civil War against the nation’s non-slave states—an epic struggle that cost more than half a million lives—precisely to defend and preserve “the gross injustice and cruelty” of Black chattel slavery. The “cornerstone” of the Southern secessionist government, Confederacy Vice President Alexander Stephens explained on March 21, 1861, was “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”
The Nazi regime of the 1930s and 1940s also believed (to say the least) in the natural inferiority of certain subordinated races (as did late 20th century right-wing US academics like Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Stephen Pinker). Such was the harsh reality of the treasonous breakaway Southern government whose “beautiful monuments and statues” the deranged white supremacist and fascist thug Trump has called “ours” and considered “part of a Great American Heritage” of “Winning, Victory, and Freedom.”
This history is worth keeping in mind after Trump47 and his white nationalist Christian fascist Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have sickeningly and tellingly ordered the renaming of US military bases after Confederate Slave Power military leaders and “war heroes.” Hegseth is the member of an evangelical sect whose pastor claims that the best period in US race relations was the slave era.
Plenty of Trump’s neo-Confederate supporters would like nothing more than the restoration of Black enslavement, trust me.
Some words on Thomas Jefferson, the removal of whose statue from New York City Hall once sparked Trump’s anger… One of many wealthy white widowers who used young Black female slaves for sexual release before and after the American “revolution” (which was fought partly to ensure the survival and expansion of North American Black chattel slavery), the author of the Declaration of Independence enjoyed prominence as a “revolutionary leader” while keeping some of his own children as slaves.
Henry Wiencek’s rightly heralded volume, Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves (2012) dug into previously overlooked evidence in Jefferson’s papers and archaeological work at Jefferson’s Monticello site to paint a depressing picture of Jefferson’s stunted, penny-pinching world. As one reviewer noted:
Wiencek’s Jefferson is a man of business and public affairs who makes a success of his debt-ridden plantation thanks to what he calls the “silent profits” gained from his slaves and thanks to a skewed moral universe that he and thousands of others readily inhabited. We see Jefferson taking out a slave-equity line of credit with a Dutch bank to finance the building of Monticello and deftly creating smoke screens when visitors are dismayed by his apparent endorsement of a system they thought he’d vowed to overturn. It is not a pretty story. Slave boys are whipped to make them work in the nail factory at Monticello that pays Jefferson’s grocery bills. Parents are divided from children in his ledgers… Slaves are bought, sold, given as gifts, and used as collateral for the loan that pays for Monticello’s construction—while Jefferson composes theories that obscure the dynamics of what he himself called “the execrable commerce.” Many people saw a catastrophe coming and tried to stop it, but not Jefferson. The pursuit of happiness had become deeply corrupted, and an oligarchy was getting very rich. Is this the quintessential American story?
A quintessential American story indeed, one that is embodied very well in the history of Trump himself, son of a Klansman.
How bad was Black chattel slavery? For decent human beings it was horrific and criminal—religious humanists commonly join 19th-century abolitionists in calling it sinful—almost beyond words and moral comprehension! And this epic crime of “revolting barbarity” lay at the underlying material-historical and historical-material heart and foundation of the rise of the white supremacist American capitalism that the depraved real estate parasite and fascist leader Trump wants to see more properly celebrated in the national culture.
As the accumulation of executive orders since Trump’s inauguration manifestly shows, the fate of history in America is a bellwether for the future of democracy itself.
If you are looking for the front lines in the struggle over our democracy, you can find them in the executive orders which brazenly seize control of history, among other things, in the name of American greatness.
If you haven’t read those EOs, it’s your civic duty to do so. Because if you want to grasp how high the stakes are and ready yourself for the battles ahead, you have to acknowledge how utterly entwined the future of our democratic polity is with the fate of history in the US today.
During the period between March and August of this year, the current administration issued a number of EOs that take direct aim at the teaching, content, and memorializing of the American past, with particular attention to those subjects which are now deemed “NSFW” in classrooms from elementary school through university.
There are also EOs which indirectly disqualify or ignore longstanding histories of climate change, inequality, racial injustice, and sexual freedom in order to make way for MAGA policies which turn the clock back decades or more, eroding the cultural, economic, social, and political foundations of American democracy.
Will we come to see an executive order that declares a crime emergency for History capital H for failing to promote narratives of America the Beautiful not just as absolute truth and sanity but as the highest form of muscular Christian patriotism?
Take for example, the March 27, 2025 EO, which declared that an insane, untruthful version of the past has beset narratives of American history through the promotion of race as something other than a biological fact in sculptures at the Smithsonian and through the public memorials which decry white supremacy rather than celebrating it.
Or the April 8, 2025 EO, which effectively sidelines three decades and more of historical research on the environmental and human costs of American fossil fuel production in order to champion US coal as “beautiful,” “abundant,” useable “in any weather condition,” and worth a trillion dollars.
Or the EO issued two weeks later which rewrites history and declares that accreditation agencies in the higher education space are nothing more or less than fruit from the poisoned diversity, equity, and inclusion tree and hence constitute abuse of governance standards in violation of federal law.
Issued on that same day is the EO which conveniently ignores histories of racial discrimination at the site of education, housing, employment, and other civic opportunities, declaring that all policies that flow therefrom are rendered null and void in the interests of restoring meritocracy.
Of particular note, as debates about AI rage their way across the globe, is the EO of July 23, 2025, which suggests that historical knowledge of and teaching about American racism and the oppression of people of color have infiltrated AI to such a degree that “one major AI model changed the race or sex of historical figures—including the Pope, the Founding Fathers, and Vikings—when prompted for images because it was trained to prioritize DEI requirements at the cost of accuracy [and] another AI model refused to produce images celebrating the achievements of white people, even while complying with the same request for people of other races.”
As is evident from that quote, these EOs have to be read to be believed.
Yet we cannot afford to look away.
As recently as August 7, the administration issued an EO that deemed activities (like history) that address racism, challenge the sex binary in humans, or debate the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic promote “anti-American values.”
Ominously for colleges and universities, the EO in which that declaration is embedded is entitled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grant Making.” Which means that knowledge of the kind produced by historians that is deemed a form of anti-Americanism may be part of a litmus test for the flow of federal grant dollars to STEM and other fields.
To be sure, histories of the African American experience, gender difference and equity, and social justice politics or movements have been under threat at the state level for years.
The promulgation of bills outlawing the teaching of everything from slavery to socialism in over half the states since 2022 has put history under a metaphorical house arrest.
But the EOs of 2025 so far are heading toward the quasi-legal equivalent of suspending habeas corpus for the practice of professional history--i.e., taking it into federal custody with no credible explanation of the arbitrary detention of its research and teaching in anything like a court of law.
And although it may not appear to be related, the declaration of “a crime emergency” authorizing the executive authority to militarize the DC police force should prompt us to think about the relationship between “history detained” and the specter of martial law.
And it looks like Chicago is next.
Will we come to see an executive order that declares a crime emergency for History capital H for failing to promote narratives of America the Beautiful not just as absolute truth and sanity but as the highest form of muscular Christian patriotism?
One that will subject history in America to the will and whim of the Department of Justice and Homeland Security?
Surely this metaphor can only work in the theater of the absurd. Or in the political theater of authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, the content and teaching of history are being caught up in the current logics of what warrants a declaration of emergency.
As the accumulation of executive orders since the inauguration manifestly shows, the fate of history in America is a bellwether for the future of democracy itself. The writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin said it best:
...all that can save you now is your confrontation with your own history... Your history has led you to this moment, and you can only begin to change yourself and save yourself by looking at what you are doing in the name of your history.
If Baldwin is right, it’s because history is neither red or blue; nor is it only about the past itself. History at its most democratizing is a provocation to reckon with the relationship between the past we’ve lived and the futures we want.
Sound the alarm: Martial law may well be next for history. And if it comes, it won’t stop at metaphor.
The contemporary US is a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past.
When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.
It usually characterizes an action, an individual, or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.
It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.
In his second term, US President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America’s official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, “reflect a glorified narrative… while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.”
If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change.
This ambition was manifested in efforts by the Department of Education to eradicate a “DEI agenda” from school curricula. It also included a high-profile assault on what detractors saw as “woke” universities, which culminated in Columbia University’s agreement to submit to a review of the faculty and curriculum of its Middle Eastern Studies department, with the aim of eradicating alleged pro-Palestinian bias.
Now, the administration has shifted its sights from formal educational institutions to one of the key sites of public history-making: the Smithsonian, a collection of 21 museums, the National Zoo, and associated research centers, principally centered on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
On August 12, 2025, the Smithsonian’s director, Lonnie Bunch III, received a letter from the White House announcing its intent to carry out a systematic review of the institution’s holdings and exhibitions in the advance of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.
The review’s stated aim is to ensure that museum content adequately reflects “Americanism” through a commitment to “celebrate American exceptionalism, [and] remove divisive or partisan narratives.”
On Aug. 19, 2025, Trump escalated his attack on the Smithsonian. “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was…” he wrote in a Truth Social post. “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”
A screenshot is shown of President Donald Trump’s August 19, 2025 Truth Social post about the Smithsonian.
Such ambitions may sound benign, but they are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.
Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a “historical impulse,” or “the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”
But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail.
Truth, Orwell recognized, was best served by free speech and dialogue. Yet absolute power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out.
As Orwell wrote in 1984, his final, dystopian novel, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Historian Malgorzata Rymsza-Pawlowska has written about America’s bicentennial celebrations that took place in 1976. Then, she says, “Americans across the nation helped contribute to a pluralistic and inclusive commemoration… using it as a moment to question who had been left out of the legacies of the American Revolution, to tell more inclusive stories about the history of the United States.”
This was an example of the kind of productive dialogue encouraged in a free society. “By contrast,” writes Rymsza-Pawlowska, “the 250th is shaping up to be a top-down affair that advances a relatively narrow and celebratory idea of Americanism.” The newly announced Smithsonian review aims to purge counternarratives that challenge that celebratory idea.
The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith’s job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in 1984.
The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South.
Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is.
The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or “thought crime,” is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present.
But it also controls the past. As the party’s protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down “memory holes,” where they are “wiped… out of existence and out of memory.”
At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole.
The contemporary US is a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past.
As part of efforts to purge references to gay people, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the removal of gay rights advocate Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship. (Photo: Screenshot/Military.com)
Even before the Trump administration announced its review of the Smithsonian, officials in departments across government had taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation’s official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes.
Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to “gay” and LGBTQ+ content on government websites.
Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life of Harriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom.
Public outcry led to the restoration of most of the deleted content.
Over at the Smithsonian, which earlier in the year had been criticized by Trump for its “divisive, race-centered ideology,” staff removed a temporary placard with references to President Trump’s two impeachment trials from a display case on impeachment that formed part of the National Museum of American History exhibition on the American presidency. The references to Trump’s two impeachments were modified, with some details removed, in a newly installed placard in the updated display.
Responding to questions, the Smithsonian stated that the placard’s removal was not in response to political pressure: “The placard, which was meant to be a temporary addition to a 25-year-old exhibition, did not meet the museum’s standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation.”
Orwell’s 1984 ends with an appendix on the history of “Newspeak,” Oceania’s official language, which, while it had not yet superseded “Oldspeak” or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect.
According to the appendix, “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: “The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds.’ … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.”
The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present, and future.
If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change.
It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it.
As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.
This story is an updated version of an article originally published on June 9, 2025.